[beagle3]

> I wonder how long they can be held responsible for past sins.

They are still threatening Android handset makers with patent lawsuits, and in fact making more money from Android patent extortion than they are from Windows phone.

The whole UEFI Secure Boot requirement is designed to thwart Linux adoption under the guise of safety.

It is NOT sins of the past. The only reason they're not pulling another IE6 or Lotus Notes is because they aren't as dominant now, not because they aren't as evil. (The UEFI thing is on the same league of evil, if you ask me, just not as successful)

[rubberband]

I don't necessarily agree with the premise of your patent argument, but I think it's a valid concern, and definitely fair game.

But, again, my quarrel is with people who choose to continue pouring salt on old wounds when there are many more relevant grips to bring up.

[yuhong]

designed?

[sounds]

Sure. What's your question about the threat UEFI Secure Boot poses to an open PC platform and its ability to run GPLv3 software?

[yuhong]

My point is I see no evidence it was deliberately designed to do so, other than on WinRT that they stupidly decided to lock down like iOS.

[sounds]

I'm deliberately saying "GPLv3" here.

If your laptop comes preloaded with Microsoft's signing key and is also set to fast boot [1] so that you can't even get into the BIOS, your system does not have the ability to run a GPLv3 OS. You can't get into the BIOS so you can't change the fact that it refuses to run anything not signed by the Microsoft key!

Yes, I know Linux is not GPLv3, but it is GPLv2 "or any later version." Also, I already know that Windows 8 has a way to get to the BIOS (hold down shift, click the restart button). Neither of those is a valid counter-argument.

[1] http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/24869.html

[yuhong]

After you go into the BIOS using Win8, you should be able to disable fast boot, secure boot, change between BIOS and UEFI boot modes etc.

[sounds]

That's what I said above.