On 23/09/11 20:33, paul sutton wrote:
On 23/09/11 20:25, Avi Greenbury wrote:
Juan J. wrote:
On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 13:06 +0100, Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote:
On 22/09/2011 00:06, Alan Bell wrote:
On 21/09/11 23:29, Bea Groves wrote:
Just read the following. Comments?
yeah, it is potentially very nasty.
Even more so when the next step could be to require signed keys to
run applications - then MS could control the hardware and the OS
AND what people actually run on it.
Don't you think laws regulating anti-competitive conduct will prevent
that to happen?
Why? It's not anti-competetive per se, it's just something that can be
used to be anti-competetive.
Banning signed bootloaders on the grounds of competition would be akin
to banning torrents on the grounds of piracy.
That's not to say there aren't other reasons to ban it, though.
Well as we can't get it banned easily lets find a way to educate people
properly about it so they know about it and how it may affect them
Paul
Is that not anti-competitive in the same way that the supposed 'secret
API' was deemed anti-competitive (although that did turn out to not exist).
--
*John Oliver*
jp.oli...@ntlworld.com
--
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/