Mike Williams
11/12/2011 8:37:00 PM
"Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote in message
news:j9m089$t3v$1@dont-email.me...
> The OEMs can pre-install keys for Linux.
Well, they can't really install a key for Linux in a generic way, although
they can install a key for a vendor's specific version of Linux (unless of
course the vendor does not have the required resources or the OEMs have not
already been strongarmed by Micro$oft in order to make it difficult for
competing operating system vendors).
> And/or they can provide a shut-off option.
Yes, they can, but motherboard and BIOS manufacturers will not waste time
providing facilities that do not make them any money, especially after they
have been bribed by Micro$oft to make it difficult for other operating
system vendors. In fact many hardware manufacturers might not provide a shut
off facility at all. Micro$oft have already proved that they are adept at
bribing people to do their bidding, as is evidenced by their clearly illegal
and gangster like activities in Jamaica some years ago, a country which they
saw as the gateway to Africa for them, and a country in which they bribed a
number of people do do their illegal bidding, and I'm sure they would have
no qualms about behaving like corporate gangsters again. And, of course,
having a competitor's operating system relying on shutting off something
that Micro$oft can describe as a safety feature would work only in
Micro$oft's favour.
> With the latter option, either way Microsoft wins. Either they
> can claim that Windows is the only safe option, or they can
> claim that Linux is "unsafe by design".
Yep. That's the case. I wonder how much money the Micro$oft corporate
ganssters are pumping into that?
> But it's hard to fault Microsoft's request for secure boot.
> The real question is how much they might be strong-arming
> the OEMs to shut out Linux.
Oh surely they wouldn't do that? Micro$oft? You talk as though they are a
bunch of gangsters!
> The scariest part is the Orwellian implications.
Yep.
> But the more insidious and likely problem is simply corporate,
> retail takeover of computing.
Well, that's clearly the aim. That is what Micro$oft is after. They want to
be in the same position as Apple in that respect, but without the need to
actually make or design the hardware themselves.
> Last time I needed a new PC I could have bought a Compaq
> Presario for $320 US. And a copy of Win7 would have come
> with that. Just the parts to build it myself ended up costing
> a bit more, despite already having a hard disk and a case I
> could use.
Yep. That's what I was saying. Many years ago you could save a fortune by
building your own system, but those days have largely gone now,
> But the OEM machines are chintzy and limited. There's
> not much upgradeability. Often the hardware is
> custom-sized, unreplaceable with normal hardware.
That's the main problem with buying an OEM machine. Each time I purchase a
machine (sometimes for myself but often for others) I make sure that the
motherboard is fairly generic and that it uses standard components, and
particularly that it has proper slots for the sound card and graphics card
and all the memory slots are not filled up with low capacity chips, and
preferably that it has a power supply with a decent output, so that it is at
least easily upgradeable.
> The OEMs are barely scraping by. They can't afford
> to make good product -- or provide decent support
> -- at the prices they charge.
That's true. The money is in the software these days, not the hardware,
especially if you are a corporate gangster.
Mike