User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Implementing UEFI Secure Boot in Fedora

Implementing UEFI Secure Boot in Fedora

Posted Jun 1, 2012 17:04 UTC (Fri) by apoelstra (subscriber, #75205)
In reply to: Implementing UEFI Secure Boot in Fedora by pboddie
Parent article: Implementing UEFI Secure Boot in Fedora

>Whether such practices are enforced overtly or through "incentives" is not a distinction that should automatically determine whether a regulator should take action or not.

It is, though, for the following reason:

"Incentive" implies some sort of trade-off (for example, Microsoft's bullying makes their software less useful and them less trustworthy, and they know they can only go so far before OEM's find it profitable to start selling no-OS or Linux systems).

It also requires the trade-off to be sustained for as long as Microsoft wants people to produce computers with their keys. So if Microsoft were to become a much smaller player in the market one day -- and looking at Windows 8, I expect this to happen soon -- they would be forced to stop pulling this crap.

To contrast, your example of us paying media companies for blank media, has none of the above. It was imposed by regulators (congress/parliament), working for a cabal of other regulators (RIAA/MPAA) with no trade-off, no choice, no accountability and no time limit. The fact is that the record companies would have failed years ago with such a poor business model, and the only reason they are alive today is because of regulatory capture.


(Log in to post comments)

Implementing UEFI Secure Boot in Fedora

Posted Jun 1, 2012 19:43 UTC (Fri) by pboddie (guest, #50784) [Link]

Firstly, you haven't really made the case for the distinction. Of course an incentive is a trade-off, but it's really just a way of pursuing the same policy without forcing anyone (the vendors or regulators) to take drastic action.

If vendors refused to follow any rules laid down by Microsoft, then Microsoft might deny them the ability to bundle Windows (technically or contractually), and that would potentially force them to look elsewhere for business or to complain about it to a higher power. However, since most vendors are heavily dependent on being able to provide Microsoft products because of the retail climate being distorted in the company's favour, most would be likely to go along with almost anything.

Offering incentives instead of making threats allows Microsoft to look like the good guy whilst making the transaction look like a positive thing, even though the effect of not taking up Microsoft's "generous" offer will result in relegation to a disadvantaged position for any vendor not wishing to play along.

And my example about blank media was concerned with per-processor licensing fees. The "justification" for this was that people would always be running Windows but might refuse to pay for it bundled, and that Microsoft should therefore get a guaranteed fee as compensation for all those "pirates" who couldn't possibly want to run anything else. The regulators put a stop to this, but then Microsoft went and integrated DOS and Windows shortly afterwards, so it was merely a tactical retreat to prevent more serious regulatory measures being imposed that might undermine that very strategy.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds