..and when the universe dies a heat death? Anything is possible tomorrow, Secure Boot doesn't mean that suddenly 100% of the numerous PC makers will one day suddenly ban user root keys and make their devices harder to fix in case of issues.
Gah, what's it about secure boot that seems to confuse so many people?
Currently there are zero vendors that lock out users from the signing keys since being Windows Certified needs user control of keys.
The parent posts point is that if such a vendor shows up, vote with your wallet and feet and get a computer from another vendor.
How is secure boot about lock-in when you can turn it off with a mouse click?
How is it Microsoft's fault that the FOSS community is unable to come up a signing organization that OEMs are willing to add?
Given that you're in full control of the keys, Secure Boot is more like a ADT alarm system controlled lock you put in your home than a handcuff. By default, MS is trusted, but you can make it untrusted and prevent Windows from ever booting even by accident if you so wish.
Sigh. Do you read anything you link? You are linking to an article that is speculating on the re-org. They are rumors until MS actually announces it:
You seem to lack the basic knowledge that when Bloomberg, WSJ, NYT, Washington Post say "According to people familiar with the matter" they're pretty much 100% right.
For example, see how WSJ got news of the iPad before it was launched. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703580904574638630584151614.html
Equating these professional organizations' sources to the same level as "rumors" by users on Apple fan forums or Slashdot does not make any sense. How many times do I have to prove that all rumors and speculation are not the same and the source and their track record matters a lot? This basically shows your willingness to argue for the sake of disagreeing rather than argue any facts and shows that debating with you is a complete waste of time.
Those Windows sites don't speculate? Since when? Perhaps you need to read more carefully.
Again, all speculation is not the same. See some of Mary Jo Foley's track record in this link which I provide again.
http://tracour.net/author/Mary%20Jo%20Foley
All you have brought is speculation unless you work at MS and have first hand knowledge. I suspect if you work for MS, you won't disclose it.
No, I don't work for MS, if I did, I would declare it, why hide it? There's nothing wrong with working for MS, as you seem to think. My speculation is from informed sources with a stellar track record and a lot of big revelations under their belt while you seem to have no clue about MS watchers who work in the press. Again, you're trying to color all speculation the same, it's not.
Ok I will switch to the format of my other reply on the other thread which seems to finally have gotten into your head since you haven't even replied to it yet.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3929159&cid=44180905
I said this
No employment contract in the US can force anyone to show up to the office and do work. Slavery is not legal anymore.
An "employment contract" that forces people to show up at work and actually do work against their wishes(under threat of arrest, criminal charges or physical punishment) is what slavery is. Q1 Agreed?
The thread came out like this.
I effectively said "Employment is at the will of the employee. MS cannot force him to work if he does not want to."
You came out with: "First, at-will employment only applies when there is no contract:"
Second, you do understand that top level executives often sign contracts which companies can dictate terms like term of employment. Often the exec and the employer agree on when they can leave; however, it can get contentious if there is no agreement. In this case, it points more that the exit was unexpected but MS let him go.
Did MS even have an option to not let him go? You bring up non-compete, but they're not enforceable in many states. Look at Steven Sinofsky's agreement where they had to pay him a ton to keep him out of competitors' hands. http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/3/4491560/steven-sinofsky-microsoft-retirement-agreement-deal-shares-nda
Why would they waste so much money if noncompete agreements were workable? Microsoft's lawyers known way more than you about this stuff. Q2 Agree?
I effectively said "No contract can force people to work against their will since slavery is no longer legal. The only way out is monetary punishment which Zynga likely bought out."
And guess what? I was right.
http://microsoft-news.com/don-mattrick-to-make-over-50-million-at-zynga/
Also what does non-compete agreements have to do with anything in this topic at all? It's another irrelevant topic that you brought up.
No, you bought this up by saying this upthread:
Or better yet, have Mattrick stay until the re-org is announced in a few days.
I brought up contracts etc. to counter that point
And now you argue against yourself and agree with me and don't even remember that you started this line of argument. Nice 360.
Q3 agree?
Also, another quote from you:
What the hell? You are the only that keeps insisting that this was all a part of the re-org yet "plans change". That makes absolutely no sense.
From a news report the next day http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-02/microsoft-ceo-said-to-give-bates-mergers-role-in-revamp.html
The restructuring isn’t finalized and Ballmer may still shuffle roles around up until it’s officially announced, the people said. Xbox head Don Mattrick had been a contender for the hardware post before left the company to become CEO of Zynga Inc. (ZNGA), a move announced July 1.
See how it makes sense? Q4 Agree?
Look, I understand you're not a MS watcher and you probably follow a lot of iNews, and that's good for you and I don't think that's a bad thing in itself at all. People have different interests and they should. But you come off trying to argue from a position of ignorance trying to show MS in bad light with flimsy and broken logic while lacking real information that is out there if you really wanted to grab it instead of trying to score brownie points by nitpicking on people who have done their homework.
If you read through this thread, I am quoting information and giving references. You are like the first AC, trying to inject baseless arguments that essentially boil doing "Ballmer is an unknowing fool that bumbled up the Mattrick exit, i know better, also MS sux and this is baaaaad news for MS". I am tired of being the only one doing the research here while you take irrelevant potshots at me.
If you want to argue from a position of strength, first watch the last 10 episodes of "Windows Weekly". Then read the last 50 articles on allaboutmicrosoft.com and Winsupersite. Those are not even opinion or speculation, Paul and Mary have known good sources *inside* MS and have repeatedly delivered, and also they're very critical of MS on many points. Arguing from ignorance and calling my posts speculation on the level of random Slashdot comments like yours is not called for. Q5 Agree?
Apple made those changes because developers protested. If everyone was like you or listened to you when you say "You're not entitled to anything beyond what Apple deigns to give you so just shut up and stop complaining" then those few changes would have never happened. So there's nothing wrong with demanding or complaining about the 30% cut or in-app purchase requirements that, for example, the Microsoft stores don't have. You just want people to be happy and roll over.
So Apple wasn't clear about rejections and may not have been consistent with its policies. So what? You want to contribute that to malice, go ahead. I would think that in having to curate hundreds of thousands of applications, there are bound to be problems.
I only care that the situation is fixed. A UI prototyping app was banned in multiple months even after the developer went high up the Apple exec chain. A coding app is prevented from sharing code. http://twolivesleft.com/Codea/Talk/discussion/348/apple-notified-us-of-violations-re-downloadable-code/p1
And we're not allowed to complain?
>I even remember CEO Tim Cook endorsing Google's Map app during the botched Apple Maps launch.
That was because people were getting into dangerous situations with Apple Maps. Apple didn't want to be culpable and get blame for that so they were basically forced to suggest competitors.
Wrong directions can have very bad real life situations, unlike say, a broken RSS reader app.
http://www.npr.org/2011/07/26/137646147/the-gps-a-fatally-misleading-travel-companion
I never said an employment contract is slavery. I said no contract can force an employee to show up for work and actually do work(like it happened in the old times). What happens if you go to work but don't do any work? You can be fired without pay, for example, but you won't face criminal charges or arrest, maybe financial ones based on contract Re-read my post, especially the first and last sentences. I did say there can be monetary punishment(which you repeat like a parrot in your reply as if you're stating something new).
In spite of you bolding "after", non-compete contract can and do cover while being employed.
From http://www.fklaborlaw.com/faqs/employment-law-covenant-compete.html
A covenant not to compete, which is also known as a non-competition agreement or a non-compete, is a promise by an employee not to compete with his or her employer for a specified time in a particular place. A covenant not to compete may be a clause in an employment agreement or a separate contract standing by itself.
Agreements that prevent employees from competing against their employer while still employed are upheld in every state. Most states also provide employers with a remedy to recover profits lost as a result of the "faithless employee" who breaches a fiduciary duty owed to the employer by competing against it, while employed, whether or not the employee had agreed not to compete against the employer.
This is an example of a typical ignorant post full of bluster and over confidence from you while not doing basic research.
Apple's abuses in the app store(search for iPhone application graveyard or look at the UI prototyping app that was banned) are so well known that the story was very believable. Thats why the competitor I was referring to was Android, not MS.
Wow you fail at reading comprehension. Mine are clearly labeled as speculation. I didn't throw a hissy fit when others speculate unlike you:
Please RTFA or buy a fucking clue. I am so tired of stupid Slashdot stories and commeters who only get their Microsoft news from Slashdot and don't even RTFA.
You speculate all you want but if you ate going to rant about others doing the same isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?
You fail at reading comprehension while quoting me out of context and accusing me of it. I will label some questions and request you answer them.
Here's the AC comment I was replying to, with the relevant part bolded:
While it's likely a good guess, as the end of major development cycle often brings big changes and most CEO's don't tend to collect direct reports, claiming that a reorg 'is imminent' is misleading and likely biased in itself. Are you afraid of competition?
How is "claiming a reorg is imminent misleading and biased" when I have shown multiple reliable sources stating it and you yourself agree with it? That AC obviously got his news(or lack of it) from this story and the misleading summary. Q1 Agree?
Again the re-org was planned. No one here disputes that. That is a dead point.
The AC comment I was replying to disputed that. Read it again, slowly, take your time and read it word by word.
AC comment I was replying to:
While it's likely a good guess, as the end of major development cycle often brings big changes and most CEO's don't tend to collect direct reports, claiming that a reorg 'is imminent' is misleading and likely biased in itself. Are you afraid of competition?
It was not a dead point when I replied to it and gave my source links showing reorg was coming. Q2 Agreed?
If so why do you think the AC didn't know about it?
Bingo! It's the misleading headline and summary which failed to talk about the reorg although the article alluded to it. Q3 Agreed?
Q4: Do you agree with the AC comment and would you mod it up or down if you had mod points?
What was talked about was whether Mattrick leaving was sudden or not. It seems to me and others that it was sudden. My contention is that I don't know if this bodes well for Xbox.
Of course it was sudden to us and likely was sudden to MS as well, I don't dispute that.
Headline: Steve Ballmer Replaces Don Mattrick As Xbox One Chief
Summary:
"While Don Mattrick leaves Microsoft to work at Zynga, Steve Ballmer announces that, from now on, he will be directly in charge of the Xbox One division as quoted: 'Don's directs will report to me and will continue to drive the day-to-day business as a team, particularly focused on shipping Xbox One this holiday.'"
That makes it sound as if Ballmer has just woken up one morning and decided he wants to head the Xbox team through the holiday release, while reality is much more nuanced. Q5 Agree?
I have given the source links from reliable sources for my so called speculation while you and the AC never gave one reference. When and where did you come to know about the re-org? From my posts or elsewhere?
My dispute with the summary and your posts was the implication and unfounded speculation that Ballmer will head the Xbox unit into the holiday season(read your own posts about the holiday season).
I dispute your contention that it's bad for Xbox because there are a number of scenarios where it might not be bad, for example, Mattrick wanted to be head of the entire hardware division, but Ballmer had other plans so he left. Also Mattrick might have been responsible for the E3 PR fiasco. Re-read the ZDNet Mary Jo Foley article again, it says people who don't get their desired role usually leave. Again, I don't know for sure about this like i do about the reorg , but I think it's way too early to for your contention.
Ah yes, pick on the one thing I didn't reply to because I was otherwise busy and tired of your totally ignorant nitpicking.
No employment contract in the US can force anyone to show up to the office and do work. Slavery is not legal anymore. Non-compete contracts can prevent working for other companies, but are enforceable in a few states only and only very narrowly and courts usually side with the employee. There can be monetary punishment in the contract(which Zynga can pay Mattrick to buy out).
We don't know why.
Oh, we do know why. It's right there in the article. Since you seem to be blind to it, here it is again, in bold, so it may help you see it.
"So what's the problem?" Dixon asked, knowing full well what the problem was.
"You know... your magazine," replied the Apple rep, who identified himself only as Richard. "It's just about Android.... we can't have that in our App Store."
Do you think Apple has the legal right to do that?
Do they have any moral obligation not to?
Do you object to it personally?
Do you think every company should go to all legal lengths to hurt their competitors?
If you were the boss of Apple would you have changed that response?
Why or why not?
I yearn for the good old days where you didn't need to pay a 30% toll and get past arbitrary and changing whims of a multinational corporation to develop and sell apps and had the choice of retail sales or selling from your own website. And yes that applies to other companies as well. However, Apple made it acceptable to the general public though, and Android(so strike Google from your silly argument) the biggest alternative allows alternative app stores and sideloading as an option to both users and devs.
Re-read your own posts, they're full of arm-chair original speculation from you, coming from your mindset of "MS sux, Ballmer sux, Apple rules, Jobs rules" philosophy.
Mine in speculation based on news and analysis, especially what's known to Microsoft watchers in the press from insiders. For example, please read the two news articles that came out only a few hours ago:
http://www.zdnet.com/whats-behind-microsofts-pending-reorg-7000017629/
Now go back and read this entire thread.
The problem here is that you probably follow Apple more and thus know more than me about the latest Apple inside news, but I read Microsoft centric bloggers and watch their podcasts, thus I will in general tend to know more about this stuff than you do.
Coloring all "speculation" the same as if some unsourced Microsoft hater comments on Slashdot are equivalent to Bloomberg's or Mary Jo Foley's sources(who has a ~100% track record on MS news leaks btw, see below) is just plain foolishness.
http://tracour.net/author/Mary%20Jo%20Foley
Getting most of your MS news from misleading Slashdot summaries and headlines makes you ignorant.
Here's an example of an App maker who you think feels "entitled" to the app store.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/11/26/apple-bans-android-magazine-app/
I am sure you think it's fine for Apple to reject that app or any other app just because....and because $$$
I don't. That's the difference between us.
Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"
