It seems to me that price cuts might be one of their bigger motivations. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the bigger channel bundles end up pricing quite a few people right out of cable altogether. Some of those people might be interested in a cheaper package.
Honestly, I don't really expect the majority of hardware vendors to lock the end user out of the firmware, but consumer stuff is certainly the biggest thing to worry about here.
Sorry. Do they do integration work with the bios that they purchase? I mean, now that I have the ear of an expert.
Do you expect that the combinations of the various vendors involved will universally avoid marketing consumer hardware with a secure boot configuration option? (that's not a great outcome, but it is 'just' more expensive, rather than unavailable)
What does that have to do with anything? The point of my post was that expecting all hardware to have protection mechanisms is paranoid hand-wringing, current hardware is good evidence of that, it often even runs code that is hostile to the user.
If you think that the Linux server market is not big enough to get vendor support, I don't know what to tell you. So at worst it will become more expensive. I guess you could move on to hand-wringing over the government requiring a license to buy server hardware or something like that.
Yeah, the big thing to look at is re-purposing consumer hardware.
The proposal is only for PCs that want to ship with a Microsoft Windows 8 logo sticker, and nothing in it requires the vendor to lock the hardware to Windows, the logo program only requires that the vendor support Microsoft's secure boot stuff. So it basically doesn't have any bearing on any hardware that isn't trying to get the sticker, and people selling to enterprises will be happy to sell them computers without the sticker.
My comment is phrased the way it is because the poster I replied to is implying that the only way to get arbitrary code running will be to circumvent a protection system, which is woo-woo paranoid, at least until the government is proposing legislation mandating use of their secure computing platform.
Well, uh, the big ones are that it might not cost extra and the vendor will provide support (plus, the vendor supported stuff shouldn't have any thorny legal grey areas).
It isn't at all obvious to me that it will become difficult or expensive to get motherboards that will boot arbitrary code. So the focus really needs to be on complaining about consumer hardware and laptops, not motherboards and such.
And it still isn't clear to me why laptop vendors would universally decide to piss off some segment of their customers, so it goes even further to arguing that Joe Consumer needs to be protected from what vendors might do, for some unclear reason.
Of course motherboard vendors will be cooperative, they are going to have to do the work for server boards, they will happily translate that work over to the lunatic market (I would include myself in there).
No, I won't. I'm aware enough that I will buy what I want and I am confident that there will be some lunatic hardware vendor choosing to market unlocked pc motherboards to paranoid nutbags like myself.
You won't be paying extra for jailbroken motherboards, you might be paying extra for motherboards with vendor supported methods for disabling secure boot or inserting user keys. Such boards will exist, corporate hardware buyers will demand them.
(A simple method is a switch or jumper, which should be quite safe from software tampering)
The problem here is that a majority of users are Windows users that will actually benefit from running a computer with a secure boot loader. So Microsoft is serving the interests of their users by pushing for secure boot.
The good reason to oppose secure boot is the fear that computers will ship locked to Microsoft's keys. Before petitioning the government to specify the terms under which Microsoft can offer a logo program, people should be encouraging Microsoft to add a requirement for a method of disabling secure boot to the logo program (this may well be futile...).
The reason for Microsoft to do this would be to put the whole damn issue behind them, and it only really matters for random consumer hardware that might end up with Linux on it, not a space they face much competition in.
(Server and business vendors will continue to sell their customers what they want, running arbitrary software on such systems will not be problematic)
I'm not trying to excuse anything. I simply accept the proposition that the bailouts were necessary to preserve any sort of status quo in the U.S.; I'm happy to agree that I'm not particularly well placed to make that judgement (I'll point out here that I haven't made any claims as to my opinions being mighty and irrefutable). I'm not even particularly sure that preserving the status quo was the best outcome for me (but my comments are made in the context of other people not even realizing that preserving the existing society and economy were actually on the minds of the people deciding to do it...). But all I did with that opinion was post it to a discussion forum...
And I guess I sort of did imply a narrow reason for the protests, which you can hold me to, or you can accept that I simply view the crisis and bailouts as the seed that started the protests (and yes, I do have the opinion that the main body of the protestors are (at least more) naive (than I am) of the mechanics behind the things they are protesting).
If you did work for them valuable enough to them that they paid you money, why are you waving a stick of righteousness in my face for posting some opinions?
Well, a for instance: AIG holds life insurance products and a lot of pension funds. Those policies probably wouldn't have been at risk during a bankruptcy, but I'm pretty sure many of the holders would have freaked out.
And I'm not particularly sure we'd actually be back to growth (or if we were, the contraction would have been so large that it would be hard to argue the economy was doing better...).
The reason the government had to do things was that it had already stepped into the supposedly capitalist economy, continued intervention was probably the best way to correct for the mistakes of the previous intervention (i.e., things like implicit guarantees for Freddie and Fannie and 'too big to fail' and the implied oversight of the financial sector (implied because obviously nobody was really watching) all contributed to creating the circumstances prior to the bailout).
Certainly, if the government is going to act like it is regulating the financial sector, it had better start doing a better overall job. I actually don't think it would be so terrible if it just stepped away, as long as it did it in a way that people were convinced it was gone, which would make them start doing their own homework.
There were strings attached, that's why the big banks ran screaming away from TARP (i.e., paid it back). The owners of AIG were pretty much wiped out (the government took ~80% ownership when it infused capital) and the owners of Lehman were 100% wiped out. So some of the people paid quite a bit.
The quiet secondary bailout where they are borrowing at very low interest rates from the Federal reserve is a little hairier, but it takes a little more than accusation to make me think it is horrible.
I tend to think of MSNBC as major media. They clearly didn't ignore your example.
And I would guess that those pilots are not particularly aligned with the other protestors (I could be wrong), they are likely taking advantage of the, yeah that's right, attention being paid to those protests.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to me that price cuts might be one of their bigger motivations. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the bigger channel bundles end up pricing quite a few people right out of cable altogether. Some of those people might be interested in a cheaper package.
Tepples stock and trade is hypothetical morons doing advanced things.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2450388&cid=37539990
(mostly the first line there)
Honestly, I don't really expect the majority of hardware vendors to lock the end user out of the firmware, but consumer stuff is certainly the biggest thing to worry about here.
Oh, I thought is must have been Jobs, seeing as he is the one that destroyed Linux on the desktop/laptop.
At best, you can insist that laptops might not get support.
Sorry. Do they do integration work with the bios that they purchase? I mean, now that I have the ear of an expert.
Do you expect that the combinations of the various vendors involved will universally avoid marketing consumer hardware with a secure boot configuration option? (that's not a great outcome, but it is 'just' more expensive, rather than unavailable)
But it is all over the news.
Why is Microsoft's legal department giving advice to Steve Jobs?
What does that have to do with anything? The point of my post was that expecting all hardware to have protection mechanisms is paranoid hand-wringing, current hardware is good evidence of that, it often even runs code that is hostile to the user.
If you think that the Linux server market is not big enough to get vendor support, I don't know what to tell you. So at worst it will become more expensive. I guess you could move on to hand-wringing over the government requiring a license to buy server hardware or something like that.
I really don't think Microsoft would expect such a thing to make it past regulators.
Yeah, the big thing to look at is re-purposing consumer hardware.
The proposal is only for PCs that want to ship with a Microsoft Windows 8 logo sticker, and nothing in it requires the vendor to lock the hardware to Windows, the logo program only requires that the vendor support Microsoft's secure boot stuff. So it basically doesn't have any bearing on any hardware that isn't trying to get the sticker, and people selling to enterprises will be happy to sell them computers without the sticker.
My comment is phrased the way it is because the poster I replied to is implying that the only way to get arbitrary code running will be to circumvent a protection system, which is woo-woo paranoid, at least until the government is proposing legislation mandating use of their secure computing platform.
Well, uh, the big ones are that it might not cost extra and the vendor will provide support (plus, the vendor supported stuff shouldn't have any thorny legal grey areas).
It isn't at all obvious to me that it will become difficult or expensive to get motherboards that will boot arbitrary code. So the focus really needs to be on complaining about consumer hardware and laptops, not motherboards and such.
And it still isn't clear to me why laptop vendors would universally decide to piss off some segment of their customers, so it goes even further to arguing that Joe Consumer needs to be protected from what vendors might do, for some unclear reason.
We aren't there yet. And the existing uefi hardware I see people pointing to has secure boot as a configurable option.
If vendor A builds a board with, say, no support for uefi at all, what the hell are your conspirators going to argue that they are circumventing?
To be clear, this board would be like most of the hardware in existence right now.
Of course motherboard vendors will be cooperative, they are going to have to do the work for server boards, they will happily translate that work over to the lunatic market (I would include myself in there).
No, I won't. I'm aware enough that I will buy what I want and I am confident that there will be some lunatic hardware vendor choosing to market unlocked pc motherboards to paranoid nutbags like myself.
There is nothing out there to suggest that Windows 8 will require secure boot to run.
Actually, Microsoft has been stating otherwise.
You won't be paying extra for jailbroken motherboards, you might be paying extra for motherboards with vendor supported methods for disabling secure boot or inserting user keys. Such boards will exist, corporate hardware buyers will demand them.
(A simple method is a switch or jumper, which should be quite safe from software tampering)
Secure boot prevents those other malwares from subverting the boot process.
Only if there is no way to disable secure boot.
The problem here is that a majority of users are Windows users that will actually benefit from running a computer with a secure boot loader. So Microsoft is serving the interests of their users by pushing for secure boot.
The good reason to oppose secure boot is the fear that computers will ship locked to Microsoft's keys. Before petitioning the government to specify the terms under which Microsoft can offer a logo program, people should be encouraging Microsoft to add a requirement for a method of disabling secure boot to the logo program (this may well be futile...).
The reason for Microsoft to do this would be to put the whole damn issue behind them, and it only really matters for random consumer hardware that might end up with Linux on it, not a space they face much competition in.
(Server and business vendors will continue to sell their customers what they want, running arbitrary software on such systems will not be problematic)
I'm not trying to excuse anything. I simply accept the proposition that the bailouts were necessary to preserve any sort of status quo in the U.S.; I'm happy to agree that I'm not particularly well placed to make that judgement (I'll point out here that I haven't made any claims as to my opinions being mighty and irrefutable). I'm not even particularly sure that preserving the status quo was the best outcome for me (but my comments are made in the context of other people not even realizing that preserving the existing society and economy were actually on the minds of the people deciding to do it...). But all I did with that opinion was post it to a discussion forum...
And I guess I sort of did imply a narrow reason for the protests, which you can hold me to, or you can accept that I simply view the crisis and bailouts as the seed that started the protests (and yes, I do have the opinion that the main body of the protestors are (at least more) naive (than I am) of the mechanics behind the things they are protesting).
If you did work for them valuable enough to them that they paid you money, why are you waving a stick of righteousness in my face for posting some opinions?
Well, a for instance: AIG holds life insurance products and a lot of pension funds. Those policies probably wouldn't have been at risk during a bankruptcy, but I'm pretty sure many of the holders would have freaked out.
And I'm not particularly sure we'd actually be back to growth (or if we were, the contraction would have been so large that it would be hard to argue the economy was doing better...).
The reason the government had to do things was that it had already stepped into the supposedly capitalist economy, continued intervention was probably the best way to correct for the mistakes of the previous intervention (i.e., things like implicit guarantees for Freddie and Fannie and 'too big to fail' and the implied oversight of the financial sector (implied because obviously nobody was really watching) all contributed to creating the circumstances prior to the bailout).
Certainly, if the government is going to act like it is regulating the financial sector, it had better start doing a better overall job. I actually don't think it would be so terrible if it just stepped away, as long as it did it in a way that people were convinced it was gone, which would make them start doing their own homework.
There were strings attached, that's why the big banks ran screaming away from TARP (i.e., paid it back). The owners of AIG were pretty much wiped out (the government took ~80% ownership when it infused capital) and the owners of Lehman were 100% wiped out. So some of the people paid quite a bit.
The quiet secondary bailout where they are borrowing at very low interest rates from the Federal reserve is a little hairier, but it takes a little more than accusation to make me think it is horrible.
Right, because I'm the only person on the internet coming anywhere close to speculating about any of the things in my comment.
I tend to think of MSNBC as major media. They clearly didn't ignore your example.
And I would guess that those pilots are not particularly aligned with the other protestors (I could be wrong), they are likely taking advantage of the, yeah that's right, attention being paid to those protests.