On Sep 25, 8:39 am, David Laroche <
dave_laro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Maybe its bad... maybe not...
> Bad for those who like to dual boot...
> Not bad for those who want to block bootable Spyware
>
Yes, you are absolutely correct, Dave. Bootable spyware is a problem,
though relatively rare, I would guess.
I wonder what percent of spyware enters from booting a malicious CD?
(I can mention Sony DRM.) More spyware gets into a computer through
Web exploits and human misdirection like "Click this great link..."
Making only Windows able to boot will not just stifle dual boot, it
will disable my ability to completely delete Windows and install GNU/
Linux, BSD flavors, Meego, etc.
This seems to be another step away from actual ownership of our
general purpose computers. I don't currently run Windows. I don't plan
to run Windows next year, or the year after that. Will I have a choice
if this idea is implemented?
In the future, will I be stuck using only a limited set of hardware
not locked down by Microsoft? Will we enter a Winmodem age across the
hardware spectrum? Will multi purpose printers need to be locked down
because, as scanners, they might attack, too.
I feel like I'm being asked to agree to give up much of my freedom so
I can have a little security, and I'd bet the amount of security I
gain will be vastly less important than the control I'll be forced to
give to Microsoft.
I really don't like the idea that I might only be able to use a new
computer with either Windows 8, or Mac OS, or the alternative of a
cloud only option like the one offered by Google. Talk about collusive
monopolies.