51–60 of 65 posts
As long as there is robust availability of hardware on which you can install your preferred software, why should EVERY bit of hardware offer that feature?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why make the difference between the two? What's so special about tablets that they deserve restricted boot, but PC's do not? They're just all computers. What's worse is that in the future these computers will be a lot more popular than PC's ever were. That means more people will be restricted by default. Most tablets and phones just happen to come with a different chip architecture, but there is nothing inherent to t…
One major difference between phones and desktops is that phones are often subsidized.
The FSF's attitude towards new technologies seems awfully reactionary (this is somewhat unsurprising when you remember that rms doesn't use a web browser; occasionally he emails interesting-sounding URLs to a service that emails them back to him in plain text, and he only checks email once a day). Secure Boot where you can only run Microsoft-approved software is bad for software freedom, no question about it. Secure…
Secure boot exists primarily because it provides a "feel good" answer to content providers about the feasibility of DRM. It's not an answer to real world security issues and never has been.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Better (and easier) to kill off a bad idea early on. Yeah, so they should have gone on an all out offensive when the iPad launched. Now there's a huge precedent they will have to try to explain away, why it doesn't apply and Microsoft's stuff have to be open but not their competitors'.
What do you think the chances are Apple has some "influence" in the FSF?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Better (and easier) to kill off a bad idea early on. Yeah, so they should have gone on an all out offensive when the iPad launched. Now there's a huge precedent they will have to try to explain away, why it doesn't apply and Microsoft's stuff have to be open but not their competitors'.
While they could have included a link to their existing campaigns against Apple DRM, focusing on one company in each campaign is better than trying to focusing on everyone. But for explaining why Microsoft should stop even if Apple has locked down devices, if a company is dumping oil in the ocean, people are allowed to complain and create a boycott against that company. If the companies defense is "well, other compan…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you think the chances are Apple has some "influence" in the FSF?
There are a lot of negative things that you can say about Richard Stallman, but to suggest that he or his organization might be in anybody's pocket is simply preposterous.
The FSF's attitude towards new technologies seems awfully reactionary (this is somewhat unsurprising when you remember that rms doesn't use a web browser; occasionally he emails interesting-sounding URLs to a service that emails them back to him in plain text, and he only checks email once a day). Secure Boot where you can only run Microsoft-approved software is bad for software freedom, no question about it. Secure…
Given that this has not been done, and given the small number of people this scenario interests, given that thoses people are unlikely to be interested by Windows 8 to begin with, and even less by Windows RT, Secure Boot has not been designed by MS to prevent that, but really to prevent the installation of other operating systems. The FSF just fight Secure Boot for the real reason it has been created; if you create and alternate security feature for the "evil maid" scenario that preserve user freedom, that would be a completely different subject and you want angry the FSF with it. The FSF's attitude towards new technologies is not reactionary. They fight for user's freedom, as always.
Reminder for Microsoft employees: Remember that Microsoft matches donations to 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations.