3 ms·
The crazy thing about this is that one proposed solution, that MS require OEMs to supply keys for Linux, could potentially be an antitrust violation, as MS make
by kenjackson 15y ago
The crazy thing about this is that one proposed solution, that MS require OEMs to supply keys for Linux, could potentially be an antitrust violation, as MS makes money from Linux too (thereby using their Windows monopoly to strengthen their other business of patent licensing).
I don't think there's much of a case here. The UEFI hardening is clearly a good thing for consumers, and having it as a logo requirement just makes sense. And if MS is not using any influence to block other OSes, that seems like the best you can ask for. And recall, OEMs can always ship without Win8 logo and not use hardening (or even UEFI at all).
- FrancescoRizzi 15y ago> And recall, OEMs can always ship with Win8 logo and not use hardening (or even UEFI at all). Sorry? I'm confused on this one. * From the MS slides ( http://video.ch9.ms/build/2011/slides/HW-457T_van_der_Hoeven.pptx http://video.ch9.ms/build/2011/slides/HW-457T_van_der_Hoeven... ): "UEFI and secure boot harden the boot process [...] Required for Windows 8 client" * From the Garrett post ( http://mjg59.livejournal.com/138973.html http://mjg59.livejournal.com/138973.html ): "Microsoft requires that machines conforming to the Windows 8 logo program and running a client version of Windows 8 ship with secure boot enabled" * From the IT World post linked up here: "And not just any old UEFI layer, either, but secure UEFI. Meaning a hardened boot process" What am I mis-reading or missing? I'm not being testy, I just think you must have spotted something I missed. Thanks
- kenjackson 15y agoActually, I mistyped. I meant to type, "OEMs can always ship withOUT Win8 logo and not use ...". I've changed the post to now reflect that. Meaning that OEMs needn't ship certified Windows 8 boxes and can still use BIOS if they want.
- FrancescoRizzi 15y ago+1 for clarifying and fixing mate. Thanks.