The Free Software Foundation Takes Action Against Microsoft's Abuses With UEFI
- Dr. Roy Schestowitz
- 2011-10-14 16:33:22 UTC
- Modified: 2011-10-14 16:33:22 UTC
Summary: The largest Free/libre software advocacy group issues a formal statement and call for action against Microsoft's TiVoization push
ON SEVERAL occasions before we mentioned the situation with regards to UEFI for Vista 8 [1, 2, 3] and we are gratified to see the FSF getting involved because it has a lot of influence, so it can make things happen. From its formal statement:
Microsoft has announced that if computer makers wish to distribute machines with the Windows 8 compatibility logo, they will have to implement a measure called "Secure Boot." Secure Boot is designed to protect against malware by preventing computers from loading unauthorized binary programs when booting. In practice, this means that computers implementing it won't boot unauthorized operating systems -- including initially authorized systems that have been modified without being re-approved.
Please go ahead and sign the statement.
This just helps show that the FSF was right all along about TiVoization. It had insight and foresight. Speaking of the FSF, its founder Richard Stallman has just told me that "My feelings regarding Jobs are about his work, not about him personally. What I said about Jobs was about his work." This is worth clarifying for all those who took his words out of context (and we chose not to feed these by doing an article about it).
⬆
Comments
XFaCE
2011-10-14 16:48:25
And personally, I never misunderstood RMS's comments either. The context of gone is certainly not the same as being dead. If Jobs had just retired completely from public life and no longer influenced Apple, then he would still also "gone" from the work experience of Apple. Bill Gates, by contrast, isn't "gone" completely from Microsoft.
Michael
2011-10-14 20:45:53
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/10/06/steve_jobs_american_exceptionalism
I am no fan of Rush (not at all) but here the man shows respect while also noting where he disagreed.
Stallman *could* have done that. Should have.
Instead he opted to sully the name of open source software even more. What scum.