|
|
|
|
|
|
by rbanffy
5240 days ago
|
|
|
> Why would they even care? I bet they would complain loudly. At least, they would before demanding the same from W8 manufacturers. > MS has made it mandatory on x86 devices to have a open bootloader. Unless I misread, they allowed x86 manufacturers to have open-able bootloaders and have the W8 approval seal. IIRC, no non-UEFI boxes will receive the seal. > ARM desktops from Dell Who said ARM desktops? I asked how would you feel if your current x86 desktop had a locked bootloader. |
|
|
I totally lost you, why would MS care if Android forces locked bootloaders? How does that affect them in the least?
They aren't going to sell Win8 ARM in the stores, so again why would they complain? It makes zero difference to them.
iPads have locked bootloaders, how does that affect MS?
>Unless I misread, they allowed x86 manufacturers to have open-able bootloaders and have the W8 approval seal. IIRC, no non-UEFI boxes will receive the seal
Not just 'allowed', it's a requirement. How does non-UEFI boxes not getting the seal affect Linux? They aren't doing that because UEFI secure boot is a good defense against many common rootkits that load even before the OS or antivirus can.
>Who said ARM desktops? I asked how would you feel if your current x86 desktop had a locked bootloader.
There was an expectation about openness when I bought it. There will be no such thing with Win8 ARM. In fact, many users are replacing their laptops and desktops with iPads, so they seem to be okay with this.