On Jun 18, 2012, at 10:05 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
2) Government. If a large enough set of national governments required
that secure boot be disabled by default then we could assume that
arbitrary hardware would work out of the box. It's unclear to me which
laws you think the vendors would be breaking, but I'm not a lawyer.
In the current U.S. (and likely EU as well) political climate, i.e. extreme ignorance of
computing, fear of real and imaginary infrastructure vulnerabilities, and desire to make
out with all things with the word security, there is in my estimation no chance Secure
Boot nor the Windows 8 hardware requirements will be perceived as being anti-competitive.
It would be easier to find government money to retrofit older hardware with UEFI Secure
Boot capability than to find the money to even explore the possibility of Microsoft (or
vendor) anti-competitive behavior, in this context.
Chris Murphy