On 23/09/11 20:25, Avi Greenbury wrote: > Juan J. wrote: > >> On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 13:06 +0100, Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote: >>> On 22/09/2011 00:06, Alan Bell wrote: >>>> On 21/09/11 23:29, Bea Groves wrote: >>>>> Just read the following. Comments? >>>>> >>>> yeah, it is potentially very nasty. >>> Even more so when the next step could be to require signed keys to >>> run applications - then MS could control the hardware and the OS >>> AND what people actually run on it. >> Don't you think laws regulating anti-competitive conduct will prevent >> that to happen? >> > Why? It's not anti-competetive per se, it's just something that can be > used to be anti-competetive. > > Banning signed bootloaders on the grounds of competition would be akin > to banning torrents on the grounds of piracy. > > That's not to say there aren't other reasons to ban it, though. > Well as we can't get it banned easily lets find a way to educate people properly about it so they know about it and how it may affect them
Paul -- [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
