On 19 Oct 2011, at 2019, Always Learning wrote:

> On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 20:03 -0500, Phong Nguyen wrote:
> 
>> On 19 Oct 2011, at 1951, Always Learning wrote:
>> 
>>> Who will compel the Far East PCB manufacturers to introduce 'extras' NOT
>>> required to run Windoze 8 ?
> 
>> It isn't an "extra", any more than providing an option to change a boot disk is, or setting a BIOS password, or guarding the MBR. They license implementations from a handful of vendors who put that thing in, anyways! 
> 
> You should realise M$'s intention is to damage, if not effectively
> destroy or reduce, the competition which primarily comes from Linux.
> Preventing or otherwise hindering dual-booting is one of many desires
> from Seattle.
> 
Microsoft is more interested in true competition these days, not the least to get the EU and US DOJ off their backs. Note that they have contributed quite a bit of code to the kernel to get Linux running smoothly on Hyper-V, for example. There is no need to cry "conspiracy" for UEFI Secure Boot - it solves a very real security problem for the vast majority of end-users. Technically minded users, again, can *shut it off*, or choose a vendor who will not play games with a user's machine. 

>>>> "At the end of the day, the customer is in control of their PC. ....
>>> 
>>> That has NEVER been true since the introduction of Windoze 95 !
>>> 
>>> A M$ Windoze computer belongs to M$. That is why Linux, BSD, Solaris
>>> etc. are so liberating.
>>> 
>> I think you need to take another look at Microsoft. 
> 
> I have been doing precisely that in the last few days. The revelations I
> have seen in law enforcement documentation utterly reinforces my
> long-held concern M$ Windoze was designed to permit clandestine
> third-party access and to secretly record the user's activities on the
> user's computer. 
> 
You would be able to provide primary source documentation to such intent? Further, what prevents law enforcement from doing the same to any other operating system? Once physical access is compromised (and clandestine software installation would almost certainly be through this route), all bet are off. 

> Perhaps you ought to be more inquisitive and re-examine your erroneously
> held 'convictions' about sweet and gentle M$.
> 
In no case have I said they are sweet and gentle. Microsoft is out to win, but there is no need to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt when the truth will suffice. Don't cry wolf, it means that people will take you less seriously. 

> You will be writing next that Google is not the world's biggest spying
> operation and it was never encouraged and funded by Uncle Sam, or more
> acurately by the USA tax payers.
> 
Insinuation will get you nowhere. 

> Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but when opinions are
> presented as misleading facts, I occasionally object. Hope you don't
> mind :-)
> 
With respect, you have been posting nothing but opinion, including the ridiculous use of "M$ Windoze", which has no place in mature and reasoned discourse.