Slashdot Mirror
OpenBSD's De Raadt Slams Red Hat, Canonical Over 'Secure' Boot
An anonymous reader writes "OpenBSD founder Theo de Raadt has slammed Red Hat and Canonical for the way they have reacted to Microsoft's introduction of 'secure' boot along with Windows 8, describing both companies as wanting to be the new Microsoft."
That's a nice 3-page essay (double-space I presume), but it doesn't change the fact Canonical and Redhat were forced to buy a license *from Microsoft* or else their OSes would not run.
That is called restraint-of-trade and it is VERY clearly a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. As I stated MS already got in trouble with the EU merely for giving-away Explorer for free & thereby gaining an unfair advantage over Opera/Google/other browsers..... now they are actively blocking other OSes from Opera/Google/other OSes from running (unless they beg MS for a license). I expect the EU to slap them down again.
Problem si that peope like YOU seem to think corproatuions never od anything wrong, even when a company like Ford designs Pintos with faulty gas tanks that blowup. Or when Toyota builds engines that die after only 25,000 miles & refuse to fix the engine under warranty. "Oh that's okay... it's a free market. I love the megacorps". You Corporate loving sellout.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Microsoft has never been happy about sharing a HD with another OS. Even now, if you have a Linux desktop and you want to dual-boot with Windows, you have to clear Linux off first, install Windows, then resize the NTFS partition, re-install Linux, and use Grub for the boot menu. Windows arrogantly assumes it's the only OS on the HD, even this late in the game. If Win8 locks down the x86 in the future, you won't even have this option.
But it's a simple point of fact to state that it is using a monopoly position in one area of a market to abuse another.
How on earth do you see the two linked?
To "abuse a monopoly position" would require that one need a monopoly in order to do something else. Ie... only Microsoft could abuse its desktop monopoly to force internet explorer onto every desktop. Opera can't put its browser on every desktop no matter how badly it wants to because it doesn't have that desktop monopoly.
So how does having a desktop monopoly facilitate Microsoft's move on ARM? Apple has locked down all its ARM devices.HTC, Samsung, Motorola are all selling ARM devices with locked bootloaders...
Indeed it seems any player in the market can and routinely does lock down the bootloaders on its smartphones and tablets.
So explain to me, how exactly does Microsoft's desktop monopoly enable them to do something other manufacturers can't do? Because it seems to me that Microsoft is no different than the already established players in the ARM smartphone and tablet players.