Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware
smithi at nimnet.asn.au
Mon Jun 11 10:12:16 UTC 2012
In freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 418, Issue 19, Message: 23
On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 16:56:49 -0400 Jerry <jerry at seibercom.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 22:06:26 +0200
> Julian H. Stacey articulated:
> >As a start here's : http://berklix.org/uefi/
> >URLs welcome. Contact names welcome. Volunteers welcome.
> It is posts like this that basically turn my stomach. A product, any
> product, should succeed or fail based on its own merits and not because
> some government agency aided or thwarted it. Most, it not nearly all PC
> manufacturers exist solely because of Microsoft. The PC market balloons
> every time Microsoft releases a new version of Windows. Seriously now,
> how many PC were sold because FreeBSD released version 9 of its OS? If
> you want to beat someone, you make a better product. You don't go
> running to your mamma asking for protection. That stinks of
> socialism/fascism. The UEFI specification has existed for years.
> Supposedly, Linux has been capable of using it for 8+ years. I have
> no idea if FreeBSD is even capable of handling it. It wouldn't
> surprise me it if couldn't though. What this really tells me is that
> there has been way to much procrastination by the FOSS. Microsoft
> simply took advantage of an existing standard (remember "standards"
> something the FOSS is always crying about) and now FOSS is begging for
> mercy. This is more than just slightly funny, it is pathetic. If 1% of
> the effort of spreading this BS over UEFI had gone into working on a
> solution for UEFI two years ago, we wouldn't be having this discussion
> at all.
I'vw been wondering when this topic would summon our longest-serving
resident troll for Microsoft out of the woodwork for a proper full-tilt
rant, replete with inimitable "socialism/fascism" jibe. Gotta love it!
More information about the freebsd-questions