1 posted on
09/27/2011 8:25:12 AM PDT by
ShadowAce
To: rdb3; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; GodGunsandGuts; CyberCowboy777; Salo; Bobsat; JosephW; ...
2 posted on
09/27/2011 8:25:47 AM PDT by
ShadowAce
(Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
To: ShadowAce
I’m glad Red Hat is on this.
Microsoft’s tactics are very shady. They deserve to be embarrassed in news reports for what they’re doing.
Even for anybody who is a fanatic of their particular brand of OS and may not be affected by this, everybody should see this for what it is and be outraged by it.
3 posted on
09/27/2011 8:28:30 AM PDT by
Halfmanhalfamazing
( Media doesn't report, It advertises. So that last advertisement you just read, what was it worth?)
To: ShadowAce
It strikes me that Microsoft is playing a word game typical of progressives.
They’re trying to make it seem as if they mean ‘security’ as in, secure from viruses, or spyware, or pick your security related topic.
What they’re doing though is quite different. They’re making machines specified so that they are “Secured to only boot windows”.
They could easily open source this technology if it wasn’t the case, so as to prove that they aren’t purposely trying to lock out the competition.
4 posted on
09/27/2011 8:31:36 AM PDT by
Halfmanhalfamazing
( Media doesn't report, It advertises. So that last advertisement you just read, what was it worth?)
To: ShadowAce
I despise the attempts that Microsoft has used to try and maintain a monopoly. Their software is so complex because of their motives that most users have huge problems keeping it use-able. All the “slime ware” that infects most MS computers are about someone making money by ads which MS has enabled. It was part of the plan from the beginning.
I have very little problems with computers (Microsoft or Linux based) but that is not the case for most operators.
It was especially prevalent with Vista users. (a real dog of an OS)
7 posted on
09/27/2011 8:38:53 AM PDT by
Texas Fossil
(Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
To: ShadowAce
I’m not sure why this is Microsoft’s fault. This should be a good security measure against rootkits, and the decision to have the option to disable it is entirely up the the hardware manufacturer.
To: ShadowAce
16 posted on
09/27/2011 9:01:11 AM PDT by
BubbaBasher
("Liberty will not long survive the total extinction of morals" - Sam Adams)
To: ShadowAce
Is this going to be the start of the decline of Microsoft?
18 posted on
09/27/2011 9:16:08 AM PDT by
chainsaw
(I'd hate to be a democrat running against Sarah Palin.)
To: ShadowAce
Ms OS sequence:
Poor: 3.x, 95, 98, ME, Vista
Solid: NT, 2000, XP, W7/64
IMHO, W8 has all chances to follow along ME and Vista.
20 posted on
09/27/2011 9:25:03 AM PDT by
DTA
(U.S. Centcom vs. U.S. AFRICOM)
To: ShadowAce
Smells to high heaven, IMO.
If I build my own, will I be forced to buy a motherboard that is crippled?
21 posted on
09/27/2011 9:25:03 AM PDT by
ChildOfThe60s
( If you can remember the 60s....you weren't really there)
To: ShadowAce
will be unable to perform secure boot of any operating system other than Microsoft’s
Will be unable to perform *secure* boot or unable to perform *any* boot?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
