> Did you read the article? It's not about "traction", it's about having that sticker or not:
"to distribute machines with the Windows 8 compatibility logo, they will have to implement a measure called "Secure Boot."
Read the article. Windows 8 still a year away (or more). Microsoft right now is shooting ideas in the air. Will this really mean that Windows 8 will force it for real? Who knows. That is exactly what I am saying. I don't think this will get traction enough to get implemented. If it gets implemented, yes, probably it will have to get traction, that sticker will make sure of it.
Microsoft right now is far away from releasing Win8, things like this popup every time they are releasing a new version. A lot of them get dropped. I believe this will get dropped.
>> RMS has tainted enough for me.Consequently, Secure Boot is OK :-)
Nop. Secure Boot is not ok. I just don't trust the FSF any more.
I'm curious: what could the FSF have possibly done to earn your distrust? Have they ever lied? Have they ever hid their intentions? Have they been factually incorrect on a particular issue? Or did they made predictions that haven't realized? Or did they act like jerks? (This one doesn't count in my book.) What happened? (I'm serious, I'd like to know.)
Thinking on an answer, I realized that it is not that I don't trust the FSF, I just don't care much for their actions anymore. Their intentions have been devaluated by the actions and comments of RMS. Everytime RMS gives in to its tendency to destroy more than create, the FSF looses value for me.
And this is obviously my opinion. I know a lot of people believe the contrary, and that is ok. Everybody is allowed to have an opinion.
Did you read the article? It's not about "traction", it's about having that sticker or not:
"to distribute machines with the Windows 8 compatibility logo, they will have to implement a measure called "Secure Boot."
> RMS has tainted enough for me.
Consequently, Secure Boot is OK :-)