Well If I right understood, this new secure feature, deep impact and
affect the computer manufacturers too like, IBM, DELL, HP, POSITIVO,
and many others that already provide their Linux offers at the same
machine.
I believe this new boot feature that only make people able to boot and
install OSs if it is already signed by someone, will not be so good to
hardware machine builders companies, because the manufactures will
loose the power and flexibility of Linux in their offers also make
them unable to provide any kind of support or not, or at least they
will need to change something in theirs strategy to be compliant with
a company like microsoft that has nothing related with their business?
In some countries we have an common selling practice and strategy
called "Venda Casada"[1] something similar to "linked sale" or
"cross-selling" that is not legally in some countries
"Cross-selling is when additional products and/or services are offered
to the customer in order to meet specific needs associated with the
original service request."
The question is, there is no law that make this feature illegally?
If manufactures starts to know about that and refuse to implement this
"secure boot" feature into their products like IBM, Dell, POSITIVO, HP
so maybe Microsoft starts to think in another way to implemented such
thing without forcing these companies to be dependent of this company.
Of course we need to keep looking for a technical solution, but also I
think is a good idea to start to think about political, economical and
based on specifics laws solutions to help us to keep the freedom of
choice and diversity on top of humanity needs instead of "secure".
I remember that sometimes in past customers power makes companies to
do unbelievable agreements that we could never imagine, and I'm not
talking if their agreements was good or not, just unpredictable.
Another point is that some big, huge, enormous customers of these
manufactures like walmart, casas bahia, petrobras and many others
around the world have heterogeneous IT infrastructure and probably
they will not be happy to know that in few time they will not more be
able to have freedom of choice about which OS they will run or
flexibility to change from one to another one. So this is not only
about 99 pieces of a value metal, depending of the point of view could
be also a problem to some companies strategy and freedom to run their
business just like they want and not imposed by other company that
have nothing related with their market or business and could be a
legal issue too.
How many companies are building their solutions using SUSE Studio, how
many building their solutions with kiwi, obs. ? Makes sense to involve
companies that are running obs and studio? Do they will effectively
be affected?
[1] http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venda_casada
CarlosRibeiro
2012/6/12 Jim Henderson
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:51:21 -0500, Malcolm wrote:
AFAIK openSUSE needs to take the lead as they are upstream ;)
My thinking here is that the openSUSE community has taken a lot of guff as a result of the Novell/MS (now SUSE/MS) deal - so we should be able to benefit from the deal as well.
A collaboration between iopenSUSE, SUSE, and MS would seem a way to move things forward - SUSE needs us to be able to boot in those environments since we're upstream to them, and it would be a good sign of support of the openSUSE project (not that SUSE doesn't continually show good signs of support to the project, quite the contrary).
Jim
-- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org