On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Phong Nguyen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> What does Microsoft gain by locking down a PC? Casual users are not going to install alternative operating systems anyways. Technically proficient users will only be encouraged to find ways to break the secure boot process (for a real example, consoles, and the debacle over Sony's Playstation 3) - and that is *not* in Microsoft's interest.

They gain DRM. This is critical to them and other companies that want
the software to run only how and when they want it to run, and the
data to be accessible only how and when they want to provide it. It's
understandable, but the GPL at the core of Linux releases and the core
features such as the kernel and glibc were designed to allow and
encourage open use and development.

We using Scientific Linux owe considerable thanks to our favorite
upstream vendor and their cooperation with these goals that allow us
this open use.

> There is much hue and cry over the potential for UEFI abuse - and we yet see no concrete evidence of abuse. There is no proof that Microsoft is trying to stamp out alternative operating systems with such tactics and direct statements by high-level personnel that they, in fact, are not trying to.

I see decades of history. Microsoft has been convicted, repeatedly, of
anti-competitive and monopolistic business practices well beyond the
legal bounds of a business eager for customers.

> If, indeed, Microsoft forces their OEM/VARs to lock down the boot process, I'll eat plenty of crow.

They've already tried, repeatedly, both contractually and through
technology. Go look at the Palladium project, relabled Trusted
Computing, for some history on this.