On Jun 8, 2012, at 10:46 AM, Gerry Reno wrote:
You're confusing restriction of user choice and freedom with anti-competition. The
argument that this is anti-competitive when Microsoft ARM hardware is a tiny part of the
market is uncompelling. This is mentioned in the first article. Further, it is possible,
while presently difficult perhaps, to run a different OS on such hardware that requires
Secure Boot. But I haven't read a compelling argument how this difficulty can't be
dealt with, let alone how it makes the policy anti-competitive.
To boot a non-Windows 8 operating system requires the same steps as Microsoft needs to get
the hardware to boot Windows 8. What's the additional burden being applied to
non-Windows 8 systems?
Chris Murphy