On 2013/03/01 09:29, Tom H wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Konstantin Olchanski
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 02:35:32PM -0500, Tom H wrote:
>>>
>>> I wouldn't be surprised if SB became "un-disable-able" in the next few
>>> years. We'd then have to use an MS-signed shim to boot, as is now the
>>> case with the default Fedora and Ubuntu SB setups.
>>
>> I am not worried. In a few years MS will be the go-daddy for getting SB
>> keys. Will give them to anybody with a working credit card number.
>>
>> Today, if you want to run a web site, you have to pay the SSL certificate
>> tax, and nobody complains, everybody is happy.
>>
>> Tomorrow, if you want to run your own linux kernels, you will have to
>> pay the SB-certificate tax, and it will be the same, nobody complains,
>> everybody is happy.
>
> I'm not worried either although I wonder whether the USD 99 will
> become a time-limited fee rather than a one-time one.

Retired on a fixed income sees $99 as a bloody lot of food I'd have
to do without.

{^_^}