On 05/31/2012 10:13 AM, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
This might work with smaller retail suppliers and local shops but if
the board was advertised as supporting secure boot then you may find
that argument leaves you without much of a case particularly if a
means to disable it was provided and documented.
Which wasn't what I was referring to. I was suggesting demanding
refunds when the OEM didn't provide proper documentation.
I've known vendors to blanket refuse to issue RMAs on the grounds
that
the customer should have known what they were purchasing (not in the
secure boot case but relating to other hardware features that are
problematic for some OSs).
I suspect that the law would say otherwise, especially if the fact that
the board would only boot an OS from Microsoft wasn't properly
documented in a way that a consumer could easily learn this before
buying. Just because the vendor isn't willing to RMA doesn't always
mean that the law is on their side, you know.