Microshaft's latest wheeze.

http://www.zdnet.com.au/windows-8-se...-339322781.htm

On 21/12/11 21:38, recursor wrote:
> http://www.zdnet.com.au/windows-8-se...-339322781.htm

Can they do that? What's Anti-Trust about then? I worked for IBM, way
back when, and the US DoJ was all over us, telling us what we could and
couldn't do.

--

Henry Law Manchester, England

On 12/21/2011 09:59 PM, Henry Law wrote:
> On 21/12/11 21:38, recursor wrote:
>> http://www.zdnet.com.au/windows-8-se...-339322781.htm
>>
>
> Can they do that? What's Anti-Trust about then? I worked for IBM, way
> back when, and the US DoJ was all over us, telling us what we could and
> couldn't do.
>
I suppose they'll try and sidestep the anti-trust issue by claiming the
security issue overrides it.

Microsoft Principal Lead Program Manager Arie van der Hoeven said that
"the decision to force UEFI use was based on security; the company hopes
to reduce the likelihood of bootkits, rootkits and ransomware."

Which is a joke as just today *yet* another Windows buffer overflow
vulnerability was discovered and the Windows file system is a classic
example of 'insecure by design'. Blaming it all on Linux and introducing
UEFI is probably M$'s last shot at keeping their dominant position in
the OS market in the face of increasingly competitive products from
Apple and the Linux distro firms.

--

Can they do that? What's Anti-Trust about then? I worked for IBM, way
> back when, and the US DoJ was all over us, telling us what we could and
> couldn't do.
>
> --
>
> Henry Law Manchester, England

No they cannot in Europe that type of exclusion is anti competitive which is
actually mentioned.

Derek W














www.classicrockradio.eu online, on message your choice of Rock and Roll
free, on your computer
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Class...o/255706175490
"Henry Law" <> wrote in message
news: ...
> On 21/12/11 21:38, recursor wrote:
>> http://www.zdnet.com.au/windows-8-se...-339322781.htm
>
>

En el artículo <>, Henry
Law <> escribió:

>On 21/12/11 21:38, recursor wrote:
>> http://www.zdnet.com.au/windows-8-se...-339322781.htm

Old news.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

On 12/22/2011 06:20 AM, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
> En el artículo<YaidndVvTZkyy2_TnZ2dnUVZ8hWdnZ2d@giganews .com>, Henry
> Law<> escribió:
>
>> On 21/12/11 21:38, recursor wrote:
>>> http://www.zdnet.com.au/windows-8-se...-339322781.htm
>
> Old news.
>
Thanks for that valuable contribution, can you point me to the thread
where it was discussed before in this group?

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:33:23 +0000, recursor <>
wrote:

>On 12/22/2011 06:20 AM, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
>> En el artículo<YaidndVvTZkyy2_TnZ2dnUVZ8hWdnZ2d@giganews .com>, Henry
>> Law<> escribió:
>>
>>> On 21/12/11 21:38, recursor wrote:
>>>> http://www.zdnet.com.au/windows-8-se...-339322781.htm
>>
>> Old news.
>>
>Thanks for that valuable contribution, can you point me to the thread
>where it was discussed before in this group?

It hasn't, but it's just ZDnet raking up a bit of nonsense for page
hits from the outraged.

There have been previous scares about this sort of thing - BIOS locks,
the Trusted Platform Module, Intel Macs (as mentioned upthread) - and
they've all turned out to be no trouble at all to anyone.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"Phnglui mgwlnafthth Cthulhu rlyey wghnagl fthagn." "In his flat in Bromley,
drunk Cthulhu waits knitting? I think a few subtle typos may have crept into
into that one." "That explains why this shoggoth I summoned is only 3mm tall."
-- Peter da Silva and Peter Gutmann, asr

Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:

> It hasn't, but it's just ZDnet raking up a bit of nonsense for page
> hits from the outraged.
>
> There have been previous scares about this sort of thing - BIOS
> locks, the Trusted Platform Module, Intel Macs (as mentioned
> upthread) - and they've all turned out to be no trouble at all to
> anyone.

IIRC we touched on it back in September when Mike mentioned it, BICBW
or on the wrong group. The expectation was either Award/American
Megatrends will implement a switch (most likely) in the firmware or
Coreboot will become pretty important.

OEMs will be more likely to lock their firmware to the OS as this
enforces new Windows == new sale but this is uk.comp.homebuilt so the
point is moot. Lappies may become a little difficult to spec but I've
always seen a niche for barebones portables so it may work to our
advantage.
--
Chronos

On 12/22/2011 09:56 AM, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:33:23 +0000, recursor<>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/22/2011 06:20 AM, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
>>> En el artículo<YaidndVvTZkyy2_TnZ2dnUVZ8hWdnZ2d@giganews .com>, Henry
>>> Law<> escribió:
>>>
>>>> On 21/12/11 21:38, recursor wrote:
>>>>> http://www.zdnet.com.au/windows-8-se...-339322781.htm
>>>
>>> Old news.
>>>
>> Thanks for that valuable contribution, can you point me to the thread
>> where it was discussed before in this group?
>
> It hasn't, but it's just ZDnet raking up a bit of nonsense for page
> hits from the outraged.
>
> There have been previous scares about this sort of thing - BIOS locks,
> the Trusted Platform Module, Intel Macs (as mentioned upthread) - and
> they've all turned out to be no trouble at all to anyone.
>
So are you saying that UEFI won't ever be used to lock out other OS's on
a machine that has it?

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 10:08:08 +0000, recursor <>
wrote:

>On 12/22/2011 09:56 AM, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:33:23 +0000, recursor<>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/22/2011 06:20 AM, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
>>>> En el artículo<YaidndVvTZkyy2_TnZ2dnUVZ8hWdnZ2d@giganews .com>, Henry
>>>> Law<> escribió:
>>>>
>>>>> On 21/12/11 21:38, recursor wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.zdnet.com.au/windows-8-se...-339322781.htm
>>>>
>>>> Old news.
>>>>
>>> Thanks for that valuable contribution, can you point me to the thread
>>> where it was discussed before in this group?
>>
>> It hasn't, but it's just ZDnet raking up a bit of nonsense for page
>> hits from the outraged.
>>
>> There have been previous scares about this sort of thing - BIOS locks,
>> the Trusted Platform Module, Intel Macs (as mentioned upthread) - and
>> they've all turned out to be no trouble at all to anyone.
>>
>So are you saying that UEFI won't ever be used to lock out other OS's on
>a machine that has it?

I'm saying it won't matter. And that ZDnet are only reporting it
(again) for page hits.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.