Re: More fake statistics paid by Microsoft
<blockquote>@h4rmOny - I know perfectly well what SecureBoot is, thank. I also know the impact that MS's diktat has had, and it can be summarised as "Pay us US$99 or piss off out of the PC market"</blockquote>
You apparently don't know as much about Secure Boot as you think you do. As pointed out, you are wrong in stating it's a Microsoft technology. It's been introduced as part of UEFI which is the product a consortium of all the main hardware players from Apple to AMD to ARM. You're repeated attempts to cast it as "Microsoft's diktat" show you are not willing to accept that you are wrong even when you can easily go and check this fact for yourself. Secondly, no-one has to pay Microsoft US$99 to stay in the PC market. No-one has to pay at all. Linux survived perfectly well with people changing which device they boot off before. Turning on or off Secure Boot is no different and Secure Boot has demonstrable and obvious security benefits to have it on which is why the UEFI forum introduced it in the first place. Nor, if another OS manufacturer wants to use it (and I hope they will, otherwise we'll have even more posts here from RICHTO explaining why Linux is less secure than Windows), then they don't have to pay MS at all. Red Hat is paying MS to sign their boot loader because MS will actually provide this service cheaper than Red Hat can do it themselves. Not sure where you got the figure of $US99. Are you under the impression that Ubuntu or Red Hat must pay MS $99 for each install or something?
"Add to that the inability to change keys on Win8 badged ARM devices and you have, IMHO, more than enough for regulators to stick the boot in."
Yeah, that's a shame. But I was talking about PCs.
"Oh, and do lay off the straw men."
Not aware that I made any. You posted some misleading comments about Secure Boot and I responded. As these misconceptions have been addressed multiple times here and you're a regular, I think it likely that you've encountered them before. So if by "strawmen" you mean how I wrote that if Red Hat or Ubuntu had beaten MS to the punch on adopting Secure Boot you'd be touting it as a win for GNU/Linux, then yes. There is an implication that I suspect you're biased there. That's not a strawman though. It's just my impression.