Fight against Microsoft Monopoly

mishrashubham

This makes me sick. Apparently Fedora (Red Hat) has given in and has agreed to pay Verisign. Ubuntu (Canonical) is making it's own key. But the issue isn't about money as much it is about freedom.

http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-...boot/statement

Microsoft has announced that if computer makers wish to distribute machines with the Windows 8 compatibility logo, they will have to implement a measure called "Secure Boot." However, it is currently up for grabs whether this technology will live up to its name, or will instead earn the name Restricted Boot.

When done correctly, "Secure Boot" is designed to protect against malware by preventing computers from loading unauthorized binary programs when booting. In practice, this means that computers implementing it won't boot unauthorized operating systems -- including initially authorized systems that have been modified without being re-approved.

This could be a feature deserving of the name, as long as the user is able to authorize the programs she wants to use, so she can run free software written and modified by herself or people she trusts. However, we are concerned that Microsoft and hardware manufacturers will implement these boot restrictions in a way that will prevent users from booting anything other than Windows. In this case, we are better off calling the technology Restricted Boot, since such a requirement would be a disastrous restriction on computer users and not a security feature at all.

Please add your name to the following statement, to show computer manufacturers, governments, and Microsoft that you care about this freedom and will work to protect it.....

Antiphon

I'm tired of rootkits. I fully support the technology.

Allowing users to override it program-by-program largely defeats the purpose of it.

Allowing whole new os's to be booted-? Pay the fee if you want to play.

I_am_learning

I won't buy such machines. If I buy a machine, I require complete right over it.

thorium1010

Quote by Antiphon

Allowing whole new os's to be booted-? Pay the fee if you want to play.

Pay the fee for what ?

DavidSnider

You're free not to buy these systems. I don't really see the problem. For the vast majority of users this is a feature, for the rest, they can buy something else.

Microsoft has already said that for Non-ARM based machines that you could turn it off in UEFI.

genericusrnme

This could be a feature deserving of the name, as long as the user is able to authorize the programs she wants to use, so she can run free software written and modified by herself or people she trusts.

How odd - "she".
I always find it odd when people write she in places where it obvious that the majority of readers are going to be males.

It does seem like it could end up being a slippery slope to becoming a pain in the bottom to run other OS's though.

AlephZero

I don't undesrstand your logic. Why do you want to buy a computer designed to run windows, and then complain because that's what it does?

If you want a bare bones system,, get one. You probably won't find any for sale in big computer stores, but I'm sure the Linux community has enough expertise to tell you where to get one, or how to build your own.

dalcde

Suppose you share a laptop. And the other person wants Windows. Very few laptops come with Linux pre-installed, so we probably want to buy a laptop with Windows and install Linux. But you can't. (OK, I know you can. But seriously. Changing BIOS settings? Not something I'd like to do to simply get linux boot)

mishrashubham

Quote by dalcde

Suppose you share a laptop. And the other person wants Windows. Very few laptops come with Linux pre-installed, so we probably want to buy a laptop with Windows and install Linux. But you can't. (OK, I know you can. But seriously. Changing BIOS settings? Not something I'd like to do to simply get linux boot)

Exactly. People say that you have the option of switching it off. But to do that for a layman would be tedious and troublesome, so much so that he might let go of the effort to install linux altogether. As it is, few people use linux. Now even those who might just want to "try it out" would be highly discouraged to do so. Not to mention the FUD that comes with it "linux is insecure, microsoft isn't"

DavidSnider

If you're unsure about keeping Linux installed permanently you can just run it through VMWare for a while.

Similar Threads for: Fight against Microsoft Monopoly
Thread	Forum	Replies
No more Monopoly money???!!!	General Discussion	54
Stats and Monopoly	Calculus & Beyond Homework	0
Oh my god a monopoly contest	General Discussion	8
HP memo: Microsoft planned open-source patent fight	Computing & Technology	0

Antiphon	I'm tired of rootkits. I fully support the technology. Allowing users to override it program-by-program largely defeats the purpose of it. Allowing whole new os's to be booted-? Pay the fee if you want to play.

I_am_learning Recognitions: Gold Member	I won't buy such machines. If I buy a machine, I require complete right over it.

DavidSnider Recognitions: Gold Member	You're free not to buy these systems. I don't really see the problem. For the vast majority of users this is a feature, for the rest, they can buy something else. Microsoft has already said that for Non-ARM based machines that you could turn it off in UEFI.

AlephZero $Math 2012$ Recognitions: Science Advisor	I don't undesrstand your logic. Why do you want to buy a computer designed to run windows, and then complain because that's what it does? If you want a bare bones system,, get one. You probably won't find any for sale in big computer stores, but I'm sure the Linux community has enough expertise to tell you where to get one, or how to build your own.

dalcde	Suppose you share a laptop. And the other person wants Windows. Very few laptops come with Linux pre-installed, so we probably want to buy a laptop with Windows and install Linux. But you can't. (OK, I know you can. But seriously. Changing BIOS settings? Not something I'd like to do to simply get linux boot)