|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 01:04 PM EDT |
For Windows that has been infected, where the antivirus software is attached by
the virus and disabled in some way, then you need a Live Linux CD with
anti-virus to actually check the windows system.
I personaly know of many Windows computers that were running one or more of
"brand name" anti-virus software, and when checked by a Live Linux CD
tool to scan for viruses, they had large numbers of Windows viruses on the
computer anyway (that the windows anti-virus did not detect, or were shut off to
detect in some way)?
Why Microsoft is doing this is most likely due to how easy it would be for a
company to migrate to the "easy to admin" Chrome OS - they want this
UEFI as a "lock-in tool". They never feared Linux before, but they do
fear Android and Chrome OS in a different way (due to what we are seeing and
will see more of later in June at Google IO conference). This UEFI is a purely
a defensive market position based move by Microsoft.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 04:58 PM EDT |
> The whole UEFI issue, won't impact me, until the next time
> I need to build a server. Or a laptop.
Not even then.
UEFI isn't a problem. It's just a super-BIOS.
The laughingly-named "secure boot" is the issue. And on the x86
platform, the Windows compliance spec requires that it can be disabled. This is
less than ideal, but really not a show-stopper.
On ARM, however, it must be enforced. This is *much* more of a problem.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
