On 02/06/12 14:15, ch...@thinkpenguin.com wrote: > It sounds unlikely any system will be without this feature should the > industry adopt it. It's like the non-free BIOS now. Nobody caters to > GNU/Linux because users don't demand freedom/compatibility. The people > who buy such hardware are almost entirely doing so because they made bad > decisions in the first place (replacement pieces/systems).
As Professor Anderson of Cambridge University pointed out last September Microsoft would fall foul of EU monopoly law if they cooked Windows 8 Logo requirements so as to cut out GNU/Linux. In January it transpired Microsoft are doing the opposite with x86 logo requirements, they're insisting GNU/Linux boot must be possible. But they're locking ARM PCs. In March I posted here a summary of a letter from my MEP / European Deputy where at my prompting she has asked the European Commission to consider if even locking ARM PCs is a violation of European Law. See it all on my home page. http://andrewlindley.co.uk/ The FSFE is right, the _general_ practice of producing restricted boot computers has to fought or we're limited to jailbreaking new devices on a case by case basis and general purpose computing devices are under threat. But as far as 'Secure Boot' goes, I repeat YHBT. -- With computer technology we're building a world where Orwell's 1984 could be a childhood fantasy akin to Santa Claus. What makes you think software without ethics is tenable? http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
