1) If the user can, but is scared away by a disingenuous message saying "Do you want to make your computer less secure by installing a non-Microsoft key (y/n)?", that would still be bad.
2) They can't on ARM-based machines that have a Windows certification.
First, Microsoft originally promised otherwise. "Pray I don't alter it any further."
Second, I and others have complained about Apple's lockdown for years. There's more leverage right now in pressuring others not to follow their example.
I don't own or plan to own an iPad. So the locking of the iPad is not affecting me directly. It is sad and silly imho that people is buying locked machines, but that's their right to do.
Now ARM boot restrictions from Microsoft directly affects me, as soon i can't buy any ARM based machine, given the way the markets work. And in the future it is a big possibility that i can't buy any other PC and put any OS that i like without pay directly or indirectly money to Microsoft. And i can see some foreign governments to use this technology to control the OS that her citizens runs, and install backdoors.
So yes UEFI secure boot is a treat to my freedom and not only my freedom to run the OS of my choice.
You'll need the "flash cable," which looks like a standard MicroUSB cable but actually provides 1.8V TTL serial to the Peek (the Peek doesn't support USB but rather exports its serial RX/TX ports over a MicroUSB connector).
Peek themselves sold one for a while and you might be able to get an official one - otherwise they're not hard to build.
If it works well for them that's awesome, but that signup stinks of elitism for me. "You can't do some simple calculus? You must have nothing to add to the discussion."
To be fair, if you can't do calculus you have no business consuming bandwidth of their quantum random bit generator. It is a limited resource (they have a fixed bandwidth at which the random data is produced), so it makes sense to limit the availability.
And if you get a problem that is too hard you can refresh a few times until you get an easy one.
I'm not saying it's OK to violate the terms of open source licenses, but the GPL has never fit with my idea of what Free Software should be like. I see Free Software as a gift given to the world as a whole, regardless of what they plan to do with it. Thus I see GNU and the FSF as terrible gift-givers.
Free Software is not a gift. That is where you go wrong. Just because you want it to be does not make it so.
Free Software, as advocated by the FSF and many others, is an attempt to remedy the ethical problems posed by closed source software, which has a strong tendency to lead to monopolistic behavior and unfair power balance between the consumer and the producer of a program.
Free Software may be many other things as well, depending on who is writing the software and releasing the code, but it's almost never a gift. The developers almost always want something in return, whether that is recognition, assistance with development or support for their ideals.
People who give software as a gift, release it into the Public Domain or use the most liberal of the BSD licenses. :-P Those who chose other licenses, do so for reasons you should respect if you intend to benefit from their work.
"Those who chose other licenses, do so for reasons you should respect if you intend to benefit from their work." Of course. Authors are free to release software under whatever terms they like, and people who use the software are bound to abide by those terms. Let me be clear, I don't think that it's OK to violate the GPL. I was just saying that I don't really like the GPL.
