Page 10 of 22 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 216

Thread: Linux Group Files Complaint With EU Over SecureBoot

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nullone View Post
    I searched several pages back, and found this forum swallowed my reply silently.

    So let me put a shorter version here, and also as a reply to Sonadow's "business 101".
    Hope you can see this reply.

    We have no doubt about what a business is for, plus people have different tastes or methods to do it.

    We have argument about what a business shall not do and how shall business doers treat people.
    Most people, the mass and unawareness, do not know what they can do or do not cry out loudly when their benefit is or will be damaged.

    Big players know and utilize that, and give people an illusion that they have choices just like voters.

    Buying CD is not like putting CD into the channel. Product is not market.

    I care about public interest 101 and market protection 101.
    I understand, and I also care about that. However the current rules in place may not protect what we want to protect.
    So it's up to us - costumers - to do something about it. And yes, the masses don't give a shit... When that happens, we all suffer, but that's what democracy is all about right? Even totally ignorant people can go and vote. What can we do? It's also not right to impose our views, that would be dictatorship.
    So I assume my previous position and do MY part, and try to shed some light on this issues to my friends and colleagues.

    Sometimes it's a waste of time though... Some people will blindly follow a company, no matter what.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    And it uses a MS issued key. That is part of the problem that we have. Exactly who gave MS the right to determine what we can and cannot boot?
    Nobody? You have that right.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonadow View Post
    Did i ever say that? No. All i said is that there was a good opportunity for a neutral party to become a signing authority for UEFI keys and nobody wanted to step up to it. All this could have been avoided if the Linux Foundation bothered to become one
    Wait, didn't you just say "neutral"?

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonadow View Post
    Did i ever say that? No. All i said is that there was a good opportunity for a neutral party to become a signing authority for UEFI keys and nobody wanted to step up to it. All this could have been avoided if the Linux Foundation bothered to become one. But they didn't. So Microsoft took up that role. Simple.

    This has nothing to do with anti-trust. Don't blame Microsoft when this result was caused by inaction on the competitors' part.
    NO! It's an action on MS part. They are the ones that have a requirement for Secureboot. If you want to dualboot then you need Secureboot enabled. It is that simple. It was MS decision. The "inaction" You talk about was purposeful. We didnt want this crap.

    MS did what they did despite us not needing it or even wanting it, and they only get away with it due to the market position that they hold. It is a good anti-trust argument.
    Last edited by duby229; 03-27-2013 at 01:45 PM.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10

    Lightbulb I speak for myself, but the trend can be manipulated by human

    Quote Originally Posted by mdias View Post
    Right, don't buy any for a month. They'll go bankrupt and other ones will be given a chance. Natural evolution, if it's bad, it will cease existing because it will not survive the environment.

    Plus, there is currently plenty of choice. I have a new PC, and a new laptop, and both are running linux. No problems whatsoever.

    I also have a mobile phone, and it's an N9. And my previous one was a N900. And I was fully aware that I was sacrificing apps and maybe paying a little too much for what I was getting, but at least I wasn't feeding the ones I want to fight against.

    I have not bought the dominated PC product for more than 10 years for my whole family.

    Does it matter?

    Shall I say I am bad or not buying the dominated product is bad according to Natural evolution since it did not work?

    Human have greater power over nature, sometimes, like human selection.

    What matters here is the mass of short-sight people who do not know what they can or what their benefit locate, and they lead ( actually are influenced and led by big players most times) the trend.

    I fight for my own benefit, and can not say for others.
    I dislike some product because of the way the producer treats people, and I want an open market so other products can emerge and exist.

    If you do not feel my pain, please do not say I have no pain or I shall not have pain.
    If you do not know the pain and want to say something about it, please listen first.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mjg59 View Post
    Nobody? You have that right.
    Not if you dualboot.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    506

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    NO! It's an action on MS part. They are the ones that have a requirement for Secureboot. If you want to dualboot then you need Secureboot enabled. It is that simple. It was MS decision. The "inaction" You talk about was purposeful. We didnt want this crap.
    Who said you must have Secure Boot on to dual boot? Windows 8 runs with or without Secure Boot. Don't tell me you bought into that nonsense being spread around that Windows 8 must have SB enabled to even work, because it's downright false.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    506

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mdias View Post
    Wait, didn't you just say "neutral"?
    What, you don't think LF is neutral enough?

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    Not if you dualboot.
    Options for dual booting:

    1) Use an OS signed with the Microsoft key
    2) Install an additional signing key alongside the Microsoft key. Use an OS signed with that key
    3) Disable Secure Boot. Windows will continue working.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonadow View Post
    Who said you must have Secure Boot on to dual boot? Windows 8 runs with or without Secure Boot. Don't tell me you bought into that nonsense being spread around that Windows 8 must have SB enabled to even work, because it's downright false.
    It's not certified with out it. There are certain features that become disabled That even windows xp had. Driver signing which saved my ass a few times among others.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •