Discussion in 'News' started by qubit, Oct 29, 2011.
I was responding to the FTFY - that really wasn't very nice and nor was editing my quote in that derogatory way.
I don't think the info in my article is wrong, but sure, it has my opinion and bias mixed in with it, so if you want to call that an editorial then fine, but I don't see it that way. This is the style of news I do, so you could probably call all my articles editorials when judged that way, lol. Depending on the subject, I can get my teeth stuck into some news items more than others. Something like this secure boot is rich in opportunities!
If it helps to see where I'm coming from, The Register writes news in this style, they don't read like editorials and I like reading their comments and bias on what they're reporting.
Re the facts, you've actually responded more than once to me now, with long posts broken down into sections like this one and whether I agreed with you completely or not, I still thanked you, because you took the trouble to make constructive criticism (even when you put it all rather strongly, lol) which I always appreciate. I've duly clicked against these latest two.
Perhaps, but it's mighty convenient for Microsoft, isn't it? This is the point that Anderson is making and I can't see anything wrong with it. This whole signing strategy basically makes a whitelist of approved operating systems that can be installed on the computer, relying on the OEM to do the right thing and provide an off switch. No, this doesn't sit comfortably with me, like anything that restricts a paying customer.
You are correct that I should have looked up the structure of the UEFI Forum and didn't realize exactly who and what it comprised of, so I'm grateful for your correction. I could have certainly made a better article with more complete info on them and I will be looking at their website in more detail before posting the next news story on this subject. Therefore, yes, Microsoft's influence would indeed be greatly diminished given the big players involved, as you say.
I don't think I said that Microsoft created it (sorry, I can't 100% remember without looking it up now) but they are pushing it forward now and in the context of the lock-in being discussed, this is significant.
Yes, quite. That still won't stop them putting up hurdles to shut out the small player. This is politics and potential backroom deals we're talking about here, so anything could happen. It should not be taken for granted that this UEFI Forum will act in a completely ethical way.
I totally see all your "news" posts as editorials and I will never stop pointing it out.
Yes, and I kind of read all of your news posts as editorials. I much prefer BTA's way of doing it, with just posting the facts in the first post, then putting his opinions in the second. When you put the opinions in with the information, it tends to give the reader their opinion instead of letting them form their own.
And that is why I don't tend to read The Register.
Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that you are completely wrong with calling it Windows 8's or Microsoft's Secure Boot. It is convenient for Microsoft, but it is wrong to assume it is an evil conspiracy by them. The OEM could just as easily lock the computer to just use a distro of linux that they want used on the computer. The reason I don't really have a problem with it is that 99% of people buying these pre-built PCs will leave the OS that came with it on it. The few that want to change will just have to either build their own, or make sure they buy from an OEM that give the option to disable the feature.
You just have to look as far as this article's title. "Windows 8 Secure Boot" It has nothing to do with Windows 8 other than Microsoft requiring Secure Boot to get a Designed for Windows 8 Logo. The title should be "UEFI Secure Boot" instead. Both news articles you've posted start with "Windows 8 Secure Boot: Blah Blah". By doing that, you are saying or giving the strong impression at least that it is an invention of Microsoft as part of Windows 8, when it isn't.
Yup. He's Qubit. but he's OUR Qubit. Been awhile since TPU was this much fun on weekends.
@Qubit : Keep up the good work.
@Everyone else : Enjoy and let's have some good old fashion hashed-out, beat-down discussions. Just keep it clean and no personal attacks.
On topic : Microsoft is not alone in formulating/ratifying the standard. There are other "multi-billion dollar companies" involved in it also.
Would these be the same companies that spend millions of dollars lobbying the US government to get laws passed in their favor and pour millions into campaign funds?
When it comes time for these companies to "pay the piper" do you think they will take the moral high ground or cowtow to the wishes of those they got elected?
I love conspiracy theories, btw. They are great fun.
Just another reason for this to not happen.
Sorry, Qubit. Gotta say I like btanrar's way of doing it better too
That's not btarunr (try spelling it correctly) that you've quoted. I would have expected better from you than take a cheap shot at me by quoting this guy crapping my thread, especially given my reply to him in the very next post. :shadedshu
Of course, he couldn't answer my challenge to contribute something useful, so he went all quiet. I of course, do contribute something useful, all the time as you know. And what do you contribute?
You totally missed that I was making fun of the guy I quoted for misspelling btarunr and that I only quoted him for that purpose.
Yes, I did miss it, lol. Honestly, it didn't look like a joke, but I guess that's the vaguaries the written word. Thanks for your support.
I thought the emoticon would have helped show I was joking
W1zz, why is Qubit allowed to post "articles" in the news section? The bias present in these editorials greatly diminishes the quality of TPU, which I (and judging from previous posts, others too) have had much respect for over the last 6 years.
This bias should not be present in any news article, if anything it should be left to appear in the discussion comments.
EDIT: I see that newtekie1 already said that.
Why are you so rude, crapping in my thread?
So qubit, what do these people have against you anyway ?
Hey, it's DRAMA! That makes sense... qubit was promoted to create drama, since W1z seems to like it so much (april fools anyone?)
Honestly, though, I've got no problems with qubit's style of writing. It's just one of those things we'll get used to. Don't, however, expect us to play nice when you go a bit to far into opinion zone without throwing up the editorial tag. bta's got his style, and it's arguably better for straight news. He still throws his opinion and bias in there, but seperate from the news post. With qubit, I just tend to read the article with a grain of salt and pick out the straight facts as they lay, I think as intended. The flipside is if you write articles laden with opinion, expect to hear our opinion in return
Honestly I think the title of this thread should be "Windows 8 & Secure Boot: Handy Malware Backdoor..." and that would have toned down a bit of the harsh replies. For the record I'm with you, qubit, as far as your stance on secure boot.
The whole industry's trend towards lock-outs, lock-ins, and lock-downs is concerning. At some point, it will no longer make sense to buy a PC as it'll just be an unsubsidized console, with a netbook attached.
You do know v-Pro is only available for BUSINESS grade laptops, and ONLY for users that specifically want it (and need a non-standard chipset that supports it), right?
"Windows 8 & UEFI's Secure Boot: Handy Malware Backdoor for Nosy Governments?" would have been a better title, IMO.
"UEFI's Secure Boot: Handy Malware Backdoor for Nosy Governments?" would be the most accurate title, as Windows 8 has nothing to do with the implementation of Secure Boot.
Nope I have not looked into yet. Just checked intels website about it, and it specifically states it is a matter of using the right processor...
EDIT: okay searched more and you have to have a Q series chipset. Was kinda hoping the Z68 was included in that, as I heard rumours the Z68 was going to support Vt-d like the Q series (assuming you have the right CPU and I do), but I do not have a firepro yet. Was going to look into more before I bought.
Plan was to build a Z68 based server and a firepro card, and then just build a bunch of crappy windows 7 boxes and run virtual VMs with remote FX. but I have not done the research yet as I have been busy with other peoples machines lately.
The last thing we need is more government intrusion in our lives. Go away.
and there you have it if DELL and HP are doing it then you can bet your ass everyone else will
thanks and not surprising. qubit reads too many FUD blogs.
Separate names with a comma.