21–30 of 137 posts
I assume Microsoft will want to have secure booting devices that ship with Windows, because Hollywood and other content producers require a secure OS so their DRM is safer. If they would allow non-secure boot, it might be difficult or impossible to get video and music content licensed from the major producers on the platform.
Like iOS. Why the shock headline?
The only way to stop unethical behavior is to punish them. The Library of Congress already ruled that this behavior is unethical, now manufacturers need to be pressured.
I assume Microsoft will want to have secure booting devices that ship with Windows, because Hollywood and other content producers require a secure OS so their DRM is safer. If they would allow non-secure boot, it might be difficult or impossible to get video and music content licensed from the major producers on the platform.
Like iOS. Why the shock headline?
I would love to see an open bootloader for iDevices. However, I do think that there is a difference between Apple, a company who makes their own hardware and have chosen this strategy, and Microsoft, a company who tries to impose their strategy on others (device makers).
Topic discussed previously on Hacker News:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3458679
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3567448
Upshot: If you don't care that your hardware is certified, you don't have to implement secure boot in the way Microsoft requires for certification. You will probably have a few technical challenges, however.
From the article: "Apple has long prevented dual booting to Linux" This is not true, I have Ubuntu on my MacBook Pro.
My speculation is that they are doing this so that they can offer subsidies on the hardware.
The article is much more complex than what it would look like from the title, but it is a good idea to keep the pressure on on Microsoft so that they might "soften their position", as is stated in the article.
Also, all of this pretty much stops new linux penetration, which is a horrible thing.