3 ms·

>It's about microsoft insisting that the only pre-loaded encryption key is theirs, to the exclusion of all other encryption keys. Bullshit, they do no such thi

>It's about microsoft insisting that the only pre-loaded encryption key is theirs, to the exclusion of all other encryption keys. Bullshit, they do no such thing. The OEMs are perfectly able and willing to preload other keys. It's the community that is unable to step up to having a signing infrastructure. Why don't you contribute to the effort of a signing mechanism for Linux instead of just spreading anti-Microsoft lies? Edit: I see that my post is getting downvoted while the factually incorrect parent post is not. This feels like /r/Linux, where facts are not welcome and where FUD gets voted up.

sethrin 14y ago
> Edit: I see that my post is getting downvoted while the factually incorrect parent post is not. This feels like /r/Linux, where facts are not welcome and where FUD gets voted up. I have a variety of negative responses to this, ranging from the apathetic, to the contradictory, to the ad hominem. I would probably not have had the same reaction had you omitted the "Edit:", although your description of the situation is perhaps oversimplified. Holding factual accuracy as the highest virtue is the blessing and curse of the tech world, and as such it may be forgivable. How you are choosing to express yourself, on the other hand, would seem to have a great deal to do with how well those comments are received.