Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 07:36:24 -0400 From: Jerry <jerry@seibercom.net> To: FreeBSD <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of? Message-ID: <20120606073624.5f7c3f53@scorpio> In-Reply-To: <4FCF352F.7030509@infracaninophile.co.uk> References: <CADy1Ce7MihpmMowc265%2BS_RKorMO3KEKsCgr=pdnjg2jzq-dYQ@mail.gmail.com> <20120605203717.5663bdf7.freebsd@edvax.de> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1206051653120.5642@nber6> <20120605181055.4af65fdb@scorpio> <4FCF0772.8000609@FreeBSD.org> <4FCF1891.9020006@cran.org.uk> <4FCF2521.6090006@FreeBSD.org> <20120606062437.41f48a9e@scorpio> <4FCF352F.7030509@infracaninophile.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Sig_/X0QOGC0vcsF70b22xt7z5jp Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:47:11 +0100 Matthew Seaman articulated: >On 06/06/2012 11:24, Jerry wrote: >> I think you are in error there Matthew. From what I have read The $99 >> goes to Verisign, not Microsoft - further once paid you can sign as >> many binaries as you want. > >Having to pay Verisign instead of Microsoft makes no difference: the >point is why should I have to pay anything to a third party in order to >run whatever OS I want on a piece of hardware I own? > >$99 as a one-off payment might seem a trivial cost to you, so much so >that you rather rashly promised to pay that for anyone. I won't hold >you to it. Even so, there are several thousand readers of this list. >I doubt even you could afford to subsidise very many of them... The $99 was for FreeBSD to deliver the OS, not per user. This is clearly explained in the various URLs listed in this thread. I am sorry if you misunderstood. Of course if a user wants to recompile the kernel, etcetera after having downloaded and installed it from FreeBSD or one of its subsidies, they are on their own. Seriously though, a one time payment of $99 is so trivial I find it hard to believe that anyone is actually bitching about it. I pay many times that amount for golf every month. >Yes UEFI Secure Boot may have been around for 8 years. The fact that >no one has adopted use of it in all that time speaks volumes. I don't want to get in an argument with you Matthew since you are one of the few on this list that I feel actually thinks before they speak and knows what they are talking about; however, the real reason, in my opinion, is that no one carefully considered the consequences of it. It is a great idea, it offers greater security and again from what I have read it can be disabled by the end user if the vendor so allows. Microsoft does not control the vendors right to allow or disallow that action. In any event, it won't belong before some hacker comes up with a way to circumvent the entire process anyway, In my opinion, so why worry about it. Most FreeBSD users do not use state of the art equipment anyway, so it may be years before they even come up against this problem. By then it will all be ironed out. --=20 Jerry =E2=99=94 Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __________________________________________________________________ --Sig_/X0QOGC0vcsF70b22xt7z5jp Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPz0C+AAoJEF2rWD2do7dNJj4H/jR1DHyC3qkAEOxTaXKS+b0j Yxsjl5ZrLCns6YgluLUFR34fsy9DJfyzvxNU1Hr2AFaDVvzwcndsC1ODNgwQO55T pCEnLYtCbhvCP9JETF4g0gS3whbRTp54lryewVc+hqZZcfc8O9vw5qCnFOTediSU DkPFersUYm5x5KiqtuvRpkDDF6YW+QAmuo5yvL8v92zUcEIgs8K6XxVpYVeLgKhN TybovuZfhNtmIVMXwhVcT5wlXjPcZVypsOKLjp0rZdEkphiOYFIPzi/7xcgqgCH0 74s7FAUNgfnJHk12sPxta0eGIqF03GkkQXp+w9cZzGPAjTvfgH+DFotpWcUVOsw= =+r5h -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/X0QOGC0vcsF70b22xt7z5jp--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120606073624.5f7c3f53>