Bringing old hardware back to life. About problems due to upgrading.
Please visit Quick Links -> Unanswered Posts.
Don't use this space for a list of your hardware. It only creates false hits in the search engines.
outrageous !!!
If anything, it will stop Microsoft repaying the fees to those people who bought machines with Win xxx preloaded, then installed a Linux OS as the only OS on that machine (yes you can do that at the moment and reclaim money from Microsoft)
I can certainly see that this secure boot will curtail our choice of OS in the future.
Just think on a bit,, In 5 yrs time, your computer finally gives up the ghost. You go down the High St and buy a new machine. What OS choice do you have? Windows/ Apple/ Fedora. That looks like the only choices you'll have, unless Canonical decide to dig deep and pay $99 for a key (I'm sure this is just loose change to Mark Shuttleworth)
But,, What happens , when a few years down the line, Microsoft decide that the key will now cost $xxx per machine? (and I can see this happening) Ubuntu and any other Linux OS certainly won't be free.
Yes, that's where we are heading
At this step the purpose is not to profit, it is to get the idea of payment accepted and break the free-as-in-beer principle.
Later Microsoft (or an associate) can claim: The Free Software people have chosen Restricted Boot but don't pay but a fraction of the development costs.
Bringing old hardware back to life. About problems due to upgrading.
Please visit Quick Links -> Unanswered Posts.
Don't use this space for a list of your hardware. It only creates false hits in the search engines.
This means nothing, the more Microsoft invests in their bootloader to nab them market share and even more money, the more people will get annoyed at them epecially now that the bootloader has already been cracked... Safe my ***... Why would I pay 99 quid for something that was so easily bypassed...
http://arstechnica.com/business/2011...8-secure-boot/
My question is this. Why does anyone need to pay Microsoft anything? Why isn't the database and requirements being handled by the hardware vendors creating the motherboards or at the very least a third party?!
Why does the makers of an operating system need to pay a "rival" creator of an operating system to install their OS on third party hardware that has zero to do with either of the creators of said operating systems?!
That is just plain stupid, and ridiculously biased.
404
Bookmarks