Microsoft under fire in Europe over Windows 8 UEFI Secure Boot

[misor]

I bet u are an american who likes to be spoon fed by MS ever becoming closed ecosystem (just like rotting apple).

American? no.
spoon-fed? no.
likes Microsoft products? yes.
likes Skype? no.
likes android? yes.
likes apple products? yes but not buying.

not all people who like microsoft products are americans.
not all americans like Microsoft products.
google is an American company and I like the free android smartphone OS.
since I both like google and Microsoft, I must have been on both payrolls, eh?

and the last time I check it, I have the right to disagree with anything and anyone....
...without using my racial card and without providing evidence of my intelligence or lack thereof.

on EU's policy: is an almost 1 billion u.s. dollar not an exorbitant fine?

 

[Darth Shiv]

UEFI wouldnt be needed if Microsoft just fixed all the security holes in Windows. Linux doesn't require UEFI to be any more secure.

Massive fallacy there. Linux is not 100% secure. Why target an insignificant portion of the market if you are going for a quick buck? Components like Flash expose MacOSX, Windows and Linux all the time. Microsoft may have a poor security track record but Linux has not been thoroughly tested because people building botnets don't care about Linux.

There are plenty of Linux exploits going around. You'll see some better examples when you look for Android exploits nowadays. Something to target finally.

 

[Darth Shiv]

If it's illegal in the EU to add a feature which the end user can easily disable/remove without any special privilege, the EU is terribly corrupt.

Who said anything about a feature that the end user can easily disable or remove? The point was MS was pushing for a feature that is *NOT* easy to disable or remove.

 

[Sphynx]

If it's illegal in the EU to add a feature which the end user can easily disable/remove without any special privilege, the EU is terribly corrupt.

Who said anything about a feature that the end user can easily disable or remove? The point was MS was pushing for a feature that is *NOT* easy to disable or remove.

No, the point is that people are lying about the nature of MS's feature. MS requires motherboard manufacturers to give the user the option to disable Secure Boot before ever booting into an OS. Microsoft directly requires that it be easy to disable.

This case is nothing more than an attempt by the crooks in the EU to confiscate more money from MS, and it seems they're willing to commit libel in the pursuit of it.

 

[Darth Shiv]

Looking into this further...

The complaint comes just over three weeks after the EU Competition Chief Joaquin Almunia said, in a written answer to parliamentary questions, that the "Commission is monitoring the implementation of the Microsoft Windows 8 security requirements. The Commission is however currently not in possession of evidence suggesting that the Windows 8 security requirements would result in practices in violation of EU competition rules".

To me that suggests the EU does not think the Win8 security requirements are an issue and currently is only a filing from Hispalinux.

I guess Torvalds etc don't like the implementation because if they were to try to utilise secure boot technology, MS controls the master key.