On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 3:33 AM, Tom Metro <[email protected]> wrote:
> But I'm not sure what the remedy is for that, as the concept for Secure > Boot seems sound, and it doesn't seem right that some outside force (an > FTC lawsuit, for example) should compel Microsoft to include in its > "Windows Hardware Certification Requirements" that hardware vendors > *must* include the ability to turn off Secure Boot. Let's apply this logic to other areas of commerce: [I]t doesn't seem right that some outside force (a government food safety inspector, for example) should compel a restaurant to include in its "Food Preparation Requirements" that ingredients are handled in a manner that ensures they won't serve food-borne pathogens to their customers. -- John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux & Unix PGP KeyID: 32A492D8 / Email: [email protected] PGP FP: 7834 AEC2 EFA3 565C A4B6 9BA4 0ACB AD85 32A4 92D8 _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
