Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 13th Jan 2012 16:20 UTC, submitted by moondevil
Windows And so the war on general computing continues. Were you looking forward to ARM laptops and maybe even desktops now that Windows 8 will also be released for ARM? I personally was, because I'd much rather have a thin, but fast and economical machine than a beastly Intel PC. Sadly, it turns out that all our fears regarding UEFI's Secure Boot feature were justified: Microsoft prohibits OEMs from allowing you to install anything other than Windows 8 on ARM devices (the Software Freedom Law Center has more).
Order by: Score:
I for one
by Soulbender on Fri 13th Jan 2012 16:26 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

welcome Microsoft's continued decline into irrelevance on anything but the Intel PC.

Reply Score: 22

RE: I for one - PC also
by jabbotts on Fri 13th Jan 2012 16:43 UTC in reply to "I for one"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I'd welcome MS decline in relevance in the PC space also.

In my own home, Win only exists for two tasks; a minimized platform for steam to run on and a pentest target in my lab subnet. For everything else including real computing, there are other fully capable options.

I got an idea where Microsoft can stick it's ARM policy all the way up to the win8 bicept tatoo.

Reply Score: 11

RE: I for one
by westlake on Fri 13th Jan 2012 18:11 UTC in reply to "I for one"
westlake Member since:
2010-01-07

welcome Microsoft's continued decline into irrelevance on anything but the Intel PC.


The Metro tablet is a mass market consumer product.

Which means that its owners will be no more interested in rooting the machine than I am interested in sponsoring a snowmobile expedition to the South Pole.

This is what the buyer wants to hear:

Qualcomm has already announced ARM chipsets specifically for Windows 8 ARM ultrabooks


Optimized hardware for his platform of choice?

Hooray!

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I for one
by Soulbender on Fri 13th Jan 2012 18:21 UTC in reply to "RE: I for one"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Defensive much?

Reply Score: 2

v RE[3]: I for one
by lucas_maximus on Fri 13th Jan 2012 19:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I for one"
RE[4]: I for one
by Soulbender on Sat 14th Jan 2012 03:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I for one"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

It's called humor. Try it some time, you might like it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: I for one
by lucas_maximus on Sat 14th Jan 2012 08:47 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I for one"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

If that is your attempt at Humor ... GAWD!

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: I for one
by Soulbender on Sat 14th Jan 2012 11:55 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I for one"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Beats using "GAWD" in all-caps on a public forum in 2012.

Reply Score: 5

RE[7]: I for one
by lucas_maximus on Sat 14th Jan 2012 12:09 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: I for one"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Beats using "GAWD" in all-caps on a public forum in 2012.


Now that sort of criticism is funny because it is pretty lame.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[5]: I for one
by bassbeast on Sun 15th Jan 2012 04:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I for one"
RE[6]: I for one
by eantoranz on Mon 16th Jan 2012 00:30 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I for one"
eantoranz Member since:
2005-12-18

That's a crappy argument, if you ask me.

So, because they actually want to make a profit and get rid of viruses or what not they are entitle to try to squash competition? That sounds like too hefty a price for us customers to pay so that Microsoft can be safe, you know? At the end of the day, who's paying for the PC? Me or Microsoft? Because if I'm paying for the piece, I'd like to do with it _as I please_, or am I the only one who thinks that when you actualy "buy" something you _ahould_ get to own it?

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: I for one
by sbergman27 on Fri 13th Jan 2012 19:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I for one"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Defensive much?

Sad to say. But he's right. Having been a long-time member of so many minorities (sometimes even a minority within a minority within a minority) I've come to realize that it's best to just celebrate my differences from other people, even if alone.

MS knows how to herd a mass market. Except, so far, on cell phones. A ray of hope, perhaps. But they may yet succeed there, too. They are nothing if not persistent.

But not so persistent as are my cold dead hands, fortunately. ;-)

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: I for one "platform of choice"
by jabbotts on Fri 13th Jan 2012 18:34 UTC in reply to "RE: I for one"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Win8 optimized ARM hardware is great if Win8 is your OS of choice. For those of us who require a different OS; will there be an unlocked non-win8 capable model available or maybe a my-pet-OS optimized ARM hardware option?

Reply Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Why the hell would you buy a Windows 8 Tablet and then complain you can run an OS. Why don't you buy something that is fit for purpose in the first place if a Windows Tablet does not fit your requirements.

Reply Score: 2

dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

well, because Linux supported devices won't be available in any sensible choice? Because I won't be able to use economy of scale to my (price) advantage. Or finally (and that's imo important for non geeks to) if windows8 turns out ti be flop I'll not be able to put android on that. All this makes windows 8 arm devices having less futureproof than even HP touchpads.

Reply Score: 11

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

well, because Linux supported devices won't be available in any sensible choice? Because I won't be able to use economy of scale to my (price) advantage. Or finally (and that's imo important for non geeks to) if windows8 turns out ti be flop I'll not be able to put android on that. All this makes windows 8 arm devices having less futureproof than even HP touchpads.


You are a niche market. It is like with with Bicycle components, I pay for the fact I have specific requirements.

If you really cared that much about using your operating system of choice, you would produce the hard cash ... that is what I do with my rather custom Push bikes.

This might open a whole new market up for tablets that run Alternative Operating systems and create jobs ... but all you care about is saving a few pennies.

Reply Score: 0

dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

Besides, think about all efforts to put Linux on recycled pc's for African people. In five years the same will concern all the tablets running obsolete versions of windows, but will be utterly impossible.

Reply Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Besides, think about all efforts to put Linux on recycled pc's for African people. In five years the same will concern all the tablets running obsolete versions of windows, but will be utterly impossible.


And the governments said we will have Windows PCs, because everybody uses Windows and we need people to have relevant IT skills.

Reply Score: 0

dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

Few pennies for me are a living in less fortunate countries.
MS couldn't care less about them. By forcing independent producers to remove features that don't hinder first users of those devices but could enable reuse they are simply doing wrong.

Reply Score: 2

dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

Well Linux used be a niche product too but now it brings smartphone revolution to the masses. Without easily accessible commodity hardware it would have never grown past hobby status. As for bike analogy I can easily mix and match parts from various producers to build my dream vehicle. This is antithesis of what ms is doing.

Reply Score: 4

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Well Linux used be a niche product too but now it brings smartphone revolution to the masses.


And my argument is that the masses do not care that it happens to run android. They by the phone, not the operating system.

Without easily accessible commodity hardware it would have never grown past hobby status.


No without large companies such as IBM, Google, Redhat it would have never got past hobby status.

As for bike analogy I can easily mix and match parts from various producers to build my dream vehicle. This is antithesis of what ms is doing.


No you cannot mix and match parts on a bicycle. Not since the early 90s.

Shimano have 4 different incompatible bottom bracket splines, and that is one component on a bicycle from one manufacturer. Some older cheap kit might work well together such as 5speed to 8 speed systems and resistance levers ... but anything modern such as STI flight deck shifters ... they won't work correctly.

Even a bicycle chains these days (10 speed compatible) have different proprietary joining mechanisms. KMC has a completely different joining mechanism to a shimano 10 speed chain, which again has a different joining mechanism again to a SRAM produced chain.

I could go on, about various braking systems that won't work together, but I think you get the point.

Edited 2012-01-14 08:57 UTC

Reply Score: 2

ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

They won't be available if you don't buy them. CES saw several announcements related to Tiezen and to Ubuntu on ARM devices. If they meet your needs, by all means, reward them with little green certificates of appreciation!!!

Reply Score: 5

terrakotta Member since:
2010-04-21

If the hardware is unique, why should you be locked to windows? An android example to point out why:
I.e. currently I'm really interested in a 'eee-pad transformer prime 700' Great concept, great hardware, but I wouldn't buy it if Asus had gone through with the encrypted locked bootloader thing. Android does not have the plethora of real user applications like amarok, koffice, kile (latex editor), octave... etc...etc... Really sometimes the software just isn't what you're looking for but the hardware is.

Reply Score: 2

RE: I for one
by fithisux on Sat 14th Jan 2012 08:53 UTC in reply to "I for one"
fithisux Member since:
2006-01-22

The decline is faster if people start making sure that their software compiles with mingw and use FOSS on windows.Use open source windowing kits (Qt/GTK/Wx/Fltk)

1. ReactOs could be used as a platform for hosting development
2. Big hemorrage to MS, nobody buys their crappy software



Notable software that is anti-mingw
1. Mozilla
2. Openoffice
3. Erlang

Notable software that is anti-OSS compilers

1.Sharpdevelop

Notable software that is anti-OSS windowing

1. Sumatra
2. miranda
3. Infrarecorder
4. Notepad++

and others.

I urge people to re-think their position.

Reply Score: 4

RE: I for one
by factotum218 on Mon 16th Jan 2012 00:40 UTC in reply to "I for one"
factotum218 Member since:
2007-03-20

Can't argue with you there. I have it to run Adobe software, and an email client. Sure, I could switch to Apple, but with what little I do on a computer outside of work it doesn't seem worth an investment. Yet.

Hello "workstation", it's been a while.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by PieterGen
by PieterGen on Fri 13th Jan 2012 16:34 UTC
PieterGen
Member since:
2012-01-13

Well, regarding smartphones: on Android phones & tablets you are your own the boss, right? At least my phone runs under a custom kernel & custom ROM.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by PieterGen
by WorknMan on Fri 13th Jan 2012 16:39 UTC in reply to "Comment by PieterGen"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Well, regarding smartphones: on Android phones & tablets you are your own the boss, right? At least my phone runs under a custom kernel & custom ROM.


Well, most Android phones and tablets come with locked bootloaders, so I'm not sure why owning a Microsoft tablet (which is essentially what running Windows 8 will be running on an ARM CPU) would be much different in this regard.

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

If it's a Nexus then it's Android. If it's not a Nexus device, then it's XYZ Incorporated's child fork distribution based on Android OS. There are very few real Android devices contrary to the marketing propaganda.

Now, the question is, how easy is it for a device owner to unlock there owned Nexus device?

Reply Score: 2

aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

Very easy. 3 commands, and a reboot.

Reply Score: 2

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

If it's a Nexus then it's Android. If it's not a Nexus device, then it's XYZ Incorporated's child fork distribution based on Android OS. There are very few real Android devices contrary to the marketing propaganda.


Well, considering there are no 'Nexus' Android tablets, then I guess you could say that there are no Android tablets currently on the market.

Reply Score: 2

bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

Well there is the Xoom, which is easily unlockable and seems to run a pretty stock android image.

Reply Score: 3

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Wrong. The Nook Color (not the new Nook Tablet mind you) has a completely open bootloader. Insert an SD card with Cyanogenmod or any other AOSP build and it will happily boot and run from it. You can also use that method to install any custom Android build you like to the internal storage, without having to drop to the command line.

It's arguably easier to install a "true" Android OS on the NC than it is to install Linux on a modern Intel or AMD based PC.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Comment by PieterGen
by jared_wilkes on Fri 13th Jan 2012 19:29 UTC in reply to "Comment by PieterGen"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

And you've most likely invalidated your warranty. Something most don't want to do.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Comment by PieterGen
by PieterGen on Fri 13th Jan 2012 21:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by PieterGen"
PieterGen Member since:
2012-01-13

Regarding the loss of guarantee when rooting an Android smartphone: you can do it in such a way that you can restore the original settings/ROM/kernel. So no one will be the wiser.....

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by PieterGen
by izomiac on Fri 13th Jan 2012 22:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by PieterGen"
izomiac Member since:
2006-07-26

Everyone says that, and manufacturers love if people believe that, but it's not quite true. There was a major supreme court case that ruled a manufacturer must honor the warranty on a modified product unless they can prove the defect resulted from the modification.

If you install a fingerprint reader on your phone (i.e. case mod, custom kernel, etc), and the screen cracks under normal usage, the manufacturer is legally obligated to honor the warranty. Of course, they'll refuse, and legal fees will exceed replacement cost, but that's the law.

Anti-lemon laws also apply, which is why they offer a warranty in the first place (and they can't be "voided", regardless of what you do).

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by PieterGen
by jared_wilkes on Sat 14th Jan 2012 00:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by PieterGen"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Yes, feel free to spend several remote tech support sessions and a couple of months in small claims court representing yourself and putting up a more costly fight than the device is actually worth.

Yes, there are laws saying you have the right to flash ROM/jailbreak/root (whichever the particular case may be), but that same law doesn't also say that the Manufacturer has to continue to provide warranty. Some countries/regions/states may have stronger consumer/anti-lemon laws which may still require to provide some support, but the right to modify doesn't translate to the right to continue be warrantied in many places.

I value my time, but I'm satisfied with a modest wage. I would say 10 hours lost to trying to get someone to support a device I modified outside of their warrantee is just as much cost as a new device. Some people would say 1 or 2 hours or even any time lost at all.

But, yes, you can try to argue that you can modify to your heart's content and still get tech support and warranty coverage of the device... it should be many hours of contentment.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by PieterGen
by izomiac on Sat 14th Jan 2012 01:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by PieterGen"
izomiac Member since:
2006-07-26

but that same law doesn't also say that the Manufacturer has to continue to provide warranty.


Actually, it says exactly that. Earlier I was mistaken in thinking it was court precedent, it's actually US Federal Law covering any device worth $15 or more. Class action suits may be filed with as few as 100 plaintiffs (to bypass state court and be handled federally) and the manufacturer is also liable for attorney fees.

Now obviously the time involved keeps most people from doing this. OTOH, there a large number of people saying that rooting and modding void warranties so people don't realize they have legal recourse. I'm not sure how much of that is corporate astroturfing VS "I'm so leet I just voided my warranty by working at such a low level!".

Reply Score: 6

Market share through vendor lock
by Alfman on Fri 13th Jan 2012 16:44 UTC
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

This must mean that microsoft believes they can get away with it on arm, but not on x86.

However, even on x86, we still don't have answers as to whether dual booting into windows and linux will be possible without going into the bios to toggle secure boot (ms hasn't promised that windows 8 will run correctly with secure boot disabled).

The ability to disable secure boot on x86 is only half an answer, we (the legitimate owners) also need the ability to authorize/revoke the platform keys. Hard-coding microsoft keys will make alternative operating systems second class citizens on new platforms.

Reply Score: 13

I'm sorry but our ARMs are tied.
by garyd on Fri 13th Jan 2012 16:48 UTC
garyd
Member since:
2008-10-22

I'm not sure how this changes things -- when you buy a system with an alternate OS in mind, you're already looking at the hardware specs to ensure it'll work with the OS you're planning to use. I only see this as another tic on the list.

Reply Score: 3

moltonel Member since:
2006-02-24

Except $FAVORITE_OS would work perfectly on the device if it wasn't locked down for market strategy reasons. In fact it might even work better, since ARM support has existed for ages on *nix, but is a new feature on Windows.

So the blame shifts from "incompetent manufacturer / FOSS" to "greedy Microsoft". Not that Microsoft hasn't done it before, but it's usually via discrete/oportunistic/plausibly-deniable channels.

Reply Score: 9

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

I'm not sure how this changes things -- when you buy a system with an alternate OS in mind, you're already looking at the hardware specs to ensure it'll work with the OS you're planning to use. I only see this as another tic on the list.

Really? I never do. And I'm sure I'm far from alone in this.

Reply Score: 3

garyd Member since:
2008-10-22

Really? I never do. And I'm sure I'm far from alone in this.

You've never looked at the list of drivers available in an operating system before buying components to run it?

Reply Score: 1

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


You've never looked at the list of drivers available in an operating system before buying components to run it?

Not when the OS I primarily run is Linux.

Plus the rare occasion I have some hardware that doesn't work (eg onboard NIC when I was running a Solaris home server), I usually have some spare components laying about that I can swap around. But it's very very rare I'm ever in that kind of situation.

Sometimes it's also nice running the more obscure OS's on officially unsupported hardware as it helps their hardware testing.

Personally though; the only pre-built systems I buy are laptops, and as I don't game (or rather play hardware intensive modern games), I don't even worry about the state of graphics drivers on Linux.

I do get a great deal 2nd hand gear from family and friends who have upgraded their computer. As many of them tend to buy computers from high street stores - restrictions like the Win8 secure booting would still have a massive impact on me. It essentially means a lot of hardware would no longer be recyclable.

Edited 2012-01-13 17:55 UTC

Reply Score: 7

cbcunix Member since:
2012-01-13

I know that this is a side note to the main argument, but I want to thank Laurence, as well as all those who help out the Linux/BSD/Solaris community with hardware testing.

I submit regular test results for Solaris 10 x86, using quite a motley array of systems and peripherals, because hardware testing is utterly lacking compared with Windows, and even Red Hat Linux. Most of the IT departments I have either worked in, or consulted with, look down upon OSes with a lacking HCL, and will not consider one of them (usually this concerns integration with legacy hardware, or brand spanking new systems).

Thank you again.....because this kind of 'grunt work' helps influence both IT professionals, as well as management who are wary of committing to anything foreign (OS-wise). For irrespective of the non-Windows OS of your choice, anything that would make it more palatable for the corporate and home user alike, is an honorable goal that is worth attaining.

Reply Score: 3

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Reuse. I often fix other people's computers for them, recently I've been able to convince a number of them to give Fedora + KDE a try as I'm able to promise them a virus free lifestyle computer that can surf the web and do basic office tasks.

I don't know about you but that's how I first tried linux, BeOS, FreeBSD, QNX, etc. I had a pc laying around that I had purchased with windows on it and dual booted. That can't be done now with these ARM windows devices. And that's just sad. The EU/US Justice department should really step in. I'm going to write a couple letters to a few US Senators and my friends who work for them.

Edited 2012-01-13 17:33 UTC

Reply Score: 5

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Bill Shooter of Bul,

"I don't know about you but that's how I first tried linux, BeOS, FreeBSD, QNX, etc. I had a pc laying around that I had purchased with windows on it and dual booted."

That's just it, we are able to experiment with alternative operating systems in the first place BECAUSE the hardware isn't restricted. I also learned linux after installing it on my windows box. I might not have been able to learn linux if I needed to buy another computer in order to do so. (That's probably what microsoft is counting on with the secure boot restrictions).

Reply Score: 6

mistersoft Member since:
2011-01-05

The EU/US Justice department should really step in. I'm going to write a couple letters to a few US Senators and my friends who work for them.


Exactly.. you beat me too it. I was just about to suggest that everyone on here that see this as a potential *big issue* write to their local MEP! (i always forget this isn't a uk/european site, dunno why.

I'm also just about to try and write a carefully crafted letter to AVAAZ too (normally they campaign about ostensibly 'much bigger' issues - human rights issues and indescretions - generally, large questions or hot topics around war, freedom and minority rights.

But they've started petitions around SOPA for instance too, and I believe this type of activity could *theoretically* become a bigger one eventually. Firstly I don't think SOPA will pass at it stands, and I like to hope that even if a lot of the 'core net' in the US became rather too censored, stifling and stodgy, that there's tools like tor alright in the wild, various alternative distributed DNS systems at least being investigated already and generally a big enough hacker community and probably enough wireless e.g. wimax like technologies that *could* eventually be grown into a relatively uncontrollable internet 1.1 (rather than internet2) - as it should be!

But all that type of internet freedom fighting activity, if it were even necessary, could be severely hindered or at least slowed if in several years time, the majority of windows laptops and tablets were locked into ARM via these secure boot mechanisms.

And to those that have suggested that hackers could eventually bypass this - well, i'm no cryptographic expert, but I believe if implementally correctly as intended that this won't possible, not without soldering or swapping UEFI chips or something like that. And that basically means for 99.9% of folk, their shiny new machines will be unrootable probably and if Microsoft want to force their customers to only run signed code etc, then, ..well, I can imagine TOR and similar for instance might never get signed under some scary but possible future circumstances.

paranoid. maybe a little. just today

Reply Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Reuse. I often fix other people's computers for them, recently I've been able to convince a number of them to give Fedora + KDE a try as I'm able to promise them a virus free lifestyle computer that can surf the web and do basic office tasks.


Oh great you give them an OS that is unsupported after a year ... brilliant!

While I might agree on the fact that if most people are just using Facebook and checking emails that is alright. But the moment they want to connect iPods, mobile phones, use third party services like Spotify they are SOL.

I don't want to have a go at you too much because I think you are alright.

Reply Score: 0

ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

Libre Linux products like Fedora are never really "out of support". It's not as if the commercial OS help desks actually help much, and the open alternatives have excellent on-line support. Nor are license keys ever required. Security patches are the only concern, and Linux exploits are fairly rare compared to Windows.

Long ago I installed Ubuntu on a small laptop for a friend. She showed me a website recently on that laptop, and I noticed a big red exclamation point in the top panel. Turns out the OS was more than a year out of support. She had basically shrugged and clicked past the warnings, because it just didn't seem to matter.

I updated here to 11.10 anyway.

Reply Score: 2

bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

ricegf boasted....

Long ago I installed Ubuntu on a small laptop for a friend. She showed me a website recently on that laptop, and I noticed a big red exclamation point in the top panel. Turns out the OS was more than a year out of support. She had basically shrugged and clicked past the warnings, because it just didn't seem to matter.

I updated here to 11.10 anyway.


You total bastard! You installed Unity on a previously working installation of Gnome? How could you? I though this was a friend, not an enemy!? ;P

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 4

ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

Yes, ain't I a stinker? :-D

In all seriousness, I'm now using Unity on my net book and primary (1920x1080) workstation. With the icons at 32pixels and the taskbar locked in place, it's actually modestly better than Win 7 (though still not quite as productive as Gnome 2 IMHO). Lenses are pretty useful once the concept sinks in, with a lot of potential yet to exploit.

Needs multi-monitor work, I understand, and some more maturing, but I think Unity will be an improvement in the long run, just as KDE 4 finally began to shine.

YMMV, etc etc.

Reply Score: 3

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Reuse. I often fix other people's computers for them, recently I've been able to convince a number of them to give Fedora + KDE a try as I'm able to promise them a virus free lifestyle computer that can surf the web and do basic office tasks.


Oh great you give them an OS that is unsupported after a year ... brilliant!

While I might agree on the fact that if most people are just using Facebook and checking emails that is alright. But the moment they want to connect iPods, mobile phones, use third party services like Spotify they are SOL.

I don't want to have a go at you too much because I think you are alright.
"

In my country, today, I can buy an ARM netbook and run Linux on it quite happily:

http://www.pioneercomputers.com.au/products/configure.asp?c1=3&c2=1...

Although the OEM offers either WinCE or Android pre-installed, there is no reason why I couldn't run say Debian for ARM with KDE if I want to.

Contrary to your assumption, I would have absolutely no trouble connecting to iPods or iPhones if I happened to own any.

http://www.libimobiledevice.org/

As for Spotify, it is simply not available in Australia.

Reply Score: 4

bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

lemur2 posted....

In my country, today, I can buy an ARM netbook and run Linux on it quite happily:

http://www.pioneercomputers.com.au/products/configure.asp?c1=3&...

Although the OEM offers either WinCE or Android pre-installed, there is no reason why I couldn't run say Debian for ARM with KDE if I want to.


Awesome! Unfortunately the shipping from Australia to the US knocks in an additional 149 AUD making my total $359.171 USD according to conversions done by XE.com.. ;)

Still because I remember you from the BeOS days (you were the PhOS guy, weren't you?) I have to ask--how does running one of those "Dreambooks with a Linux distro handle? I figure you're probably the guy to ask.

--bornagainpengui

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

lemur2 posted....
"In my country, today, I can buy an ARM netbook and run Linux on it quite happily:

http://www.pioneercomputers.com.au/products/configure.asp?c1=3&c2=1...

Although the OEM offers either WinCE or Android pre-installed, there is no reason why I couldn't run say Debian for ARM with KDE if I want to.


Awesome! Unfortunately the shipping from Australia to the US knocks in an additional 149 AUD making my total $359.171 USD according to conversions done by XE.com.. ;)

Still because I remember you from the BeOS days (you were the PhOS guy, weren't you?) I have to ask--how does running one of those "Dreambooks with a Linux distro handle? I figure you're probably the guy to ask.

--bornagainpengui
"

Sorry, but I'm not the BeOS guy, and I don't own an ARM netbook. The netbook I do own is an Acer Aspire One 522, which uses an AMD Fusion C50 APU. I got this one only because it was one of a very limited choice available to me, as an award.

Even though this netbook came with Windows 7 starter, I am running Kubuntu Precise Pangolin Aplha on in right now as I type this, and so I am significantly better off. Since I am the owner of the hardware, the fact that I can do so is they way it should be, IMO.

Edited 2012-01-14 03:58 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

First point, It doesn't really matter to the discussion how good or bad any Linux Disto is. Even if it were the greatest OS ever put together, it wouldn't be possible to install on one of these ARM windows machines. Don't you see a problem with that?

Second, My friends are not idiots they can handle figuring out how to update Fedora. Sometimes we all just need a recomendation from a person more knowledgable in a field to take a leap of faith. Again, this move by Microsoft makes this impossible. And while I don't know of anyone who uses spotify, they do have a native linux client that I installed yesterday just to make sure it worked. For MP3 Players: Rythm Box works great.

Reply Score: 5

trev Member since:
2006-11-22

Yep, you would think that this would be a rather clear cut anti-trust case. That said I'm sure it will be left to the EU to sort this out history has shown that the US DOJ can be bought for a not so high price. Go go EU trust busters!

Reply Score: 5

v Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Fri 13th Jan 2012 16:57 UTC
RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 13th Jan 2012 17:03 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Stop pre-ejaculating and just take your time -- let the story unravel as it will -- it may turn out all your panic is for nothing.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXl1GkWWGmA

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by daveidixon on Fri 13th Jan 2012 17:08 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
daveidixon Member since:
2006-01-01

It's as stupid as buying a microwave and being mad that it doesn't wash your dishes too. You're buying a product designed and intended for a specific purpose, yet you're pissing yourself because you supposedly can't do things outside the realm of that design and intent...

Well, Arm devices have the potential to run more things that Windows 8, Microwaves don't have the potential to wash dishes (at least mine certainly doesn't)


Further, I don't know why people crap their pants over this "news". Until the devices are out and in peoples hands to use/manipulate, you don't know what's possible with them. Stop pre-ejaculating and just take your time -- let the story unravel as it will -- it may turn out all your panic is for nothing.

I agree

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by JAlexoid on Fri 13th Jan 2012 17:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

let the story unravel as it will

Yes, let the story unravel as it will. Any other nihilistic statements you want to agree to?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer
by garyd on Fri 13th Jan 2012 17:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer"
garyd Member since:
2008-10-22

Any other nihilistic statements you want to agree to?

Punk rock is dead. Long live punk rock!

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by M.Onty on Fri 13th Jan 2012 17:10 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

A Microwave can cook food with microwaves. It can't do anything else. A Turing Complete computer is not "built for a specific purpose", it is general purpose.

Reply Score: 12

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by Alfman on Fri 13th Jan 2012 17:13 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

ilovebeer,

Do companies have a right to impose vendor locked computing devices on their customers? Possibly (it's questionable when a monopoly does it). However we can't ignore the benefits of open computing either. Just because open computing may not be relevant to you, that does not make it irrelevant to others like myself. We have a right to be concerned and to speak up about it. The public deserves to know what they're buying into.

Edited 2012-01-13 17:26 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by shotsman on Fri 13th Jan 2012 17:19 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

If we wait until we see the devices it will be too late.
Microsoft will have won.
The likes of Dell, HP and virtually every other manufacturer will have already signed up for their protection racket.

What need to happen is that there will be enough of an outcry against this that the manufacturers will think long and hard about going along with Microsoft.

Once devices with this functionality are out there, the ability to change things will be lost forever.
Then if a group of linux fanbois hack the devices thus alowing them to boot something other than Windows they will be hit so hard with a gazillion lawsuits than no one will dare to ever try again UNLESS, say 30,000 people all do it at the same time.
Look at the tactics that saw the downfall of the government in Egypt. Mass disobediance. 1776 anyone?
The only way to succeed will be if enough people break it at the same time.
Now I'll sit back and wait for the men in suits & shaded to come a knocking.

Reply Score: 12

v RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by lucas_maximus on Fri 13th Jan 2012 18:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Isn't the UEFI issue being discussed here related to ARM based ultrabooks not tablets? And why, after plunking down money to buy the hardware, should a device owner not be able to opt-out of secure boot and apply whatever OS they choose to it? Your grandma won't be installing an alternative OS; great, why should that limit the computing functionality for those who would? Why should your grandma's using the microwave to make popcorn only be an acceptable basis for stoping me from reheating a spot of lasagna?

I also find it intersting that you justify limiting everyone's computing experience based on the opinion of someone who can't even explain what you do for a living let alone understand the potential outcomes of hardware locked to a specific OS for no other effective reason than one companies profiteering strategy?

Reply Score: 7

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Isn't the UEFI issue being discussed here related to ARM based ultrabooks not tablets? And why, after plunking down money to buy the hardware, should a device owner not be able to opt-out of secure boot and apply whatever OS they choose to it?


Because you are being sold something that is a complete product ... you aren't being sold a tablet that can boot Windows 8 and other operating systems.

You are buying a device that is sold as running Windows 8. If you don't like it ... buy something else.

I also find it intersting that you justify limiting everyone's computing experience based on the opinion of someone who can't even explain what you do for a living let alone understand the potential outcomes of hardware locked to a specific OS for no other effective reason than one companies profiteering strategy?


LOL ... the idea is that most people IMO should never need to know how a tablet works or ever care. It should do what it does, never bother them until it gets wrong where they take it to a professional to get fixed.

Apple sells this as a feature ... btw you may wish to google Simon Sinek ... it will explain it better than I ever could.

Do you care how an Aircraft flies (I know quite a lot about it, I have a HND in Mechanical Engineering) but most people don't.

Do people care how a car works ... Nope.

Do people care how a washing machine works .. Nope

Do people care how a TV works ... Nope.

A Tablet is a product.

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

If the option is a locked ARM device running win8 or another "complete package" which does allow another OS, you can bet your baby I'll "buy something else".

The point is, there is no benefit to the end user with this scheme. It does not improve the security of the owner's information. Malware will still be affective as will social engineering attacks. The only benefit is Microsoft's limiting comptitive OS on general purpose hardware.

And your apeal to numbers argument regarding users who do not wish to understand how technology works; so what? Why should Bob not understanding how a TV works stop Fred from doing so? Why should it limit hardware resuse with lighter general purpose OS when win8 grows too heavy for the older geenration Ultrabooks? Why should tech support people be locked out of bootable tools when helping those who do not care how technology works but want it fixed "now, now, now, now!!"?

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

If the option is a locked ARM device running win8 or another "complete package" which does allow another OS, you can bet your baby I'll "buy something else".

The point is, there is no benefit to the end user with this scheme. It does not improve the security of the owner's information. Malware will still be affective as will social engineering attacks. The only benefit is Microsoft's limiting comptitive OS on general purpose hardware.


I hope you will buy something else and quit bitching about something that won't really affect you.

Many viruses and malware have gone back to installing themselves in the MBR ... so it does benefit the end user that don't know anything about computer security (which was the point I was trying to make about them not ever having to care how it works).

And your appeal to numbers argument regarding users who do not wish to understand how technology works; so what? Why should Bob not understanding how a TV works stop Fred from doing so? Why should it limit hardware reuse with lighter general purpose OS when win8 grows too heavy for the older geenration Ultrabooks? Why should tech support people be locked out of bootable tools when helping those who do not care how technology works but want it fixed "now, now, now, now!!"?


Windows 8 will use less resources and it won't grow "heavy" ... pretty much like Windows 2000, Windows XP and Windows 7 and 8 (which uses less resources than 7 btw, I am running the platform preview .. so I actually use this stuff before shouting my mouth off)

There is nothing stopping Fred from learning about computers, it all over bloody Google. Linux my friend does not teach you how a computer works.

Not being able to install random OS != Restricting Information.

I am pretty sure that many of the strongest proponents of Linux won't be able to tell you the differences between pages and frames.

As for tech support, the person will just send it back to be fixed under warranty.

Edited 2012-01-13 19:34 UTC

Reply Score: 1

tonny Member since:
2011-12-22

Sigh.. You, mister, with your small world & anti-altruism..


I hope you will buy something else and quit bitching about something that won't really affect you.

Well, do you know that once a time people can't bought a computer that didn't come with windows pre-installed? YOU and OTHERS need it (the OS) doesn't mean WE, and OTHERS, need it.

Windows 8 will use less resources and it won't grow "heavy" ... pretty much like Windows 2000, Windows XP and Windows 7 and 8 (which uses less resources than 7 btw, I am running the platform preview .. so I actually use this stuff before shouting my mouth off)

Yeah, right! Windows(TM) won't grow *heavy*, and I can live in Mars now. { Psst.. How much Microsoft been paying you for this statement? If the fee for blurting out this is OK, can I join in? }

There is nothing stopping Fred from learning about computers, it all over bloody Google. Linux my friend does not teach you how a computer works.

When I want to learn about computer's operating system, say, other OS beside MS Windows --with installing and examining it-- and at that time I can't get single computer or whatever that can't install and boot from that other OS, then how can I learn about computer's OS, Mr. Genius? And no.. I want it installed to the computer, not with some VM.
...And yes, my dear friend, linux teach you how a computer work.

Not being able to install random OS != Restricting Information.

Genius! How logic!


I am pretty sure that many of the strongest proponents of Linux won't be able to tell you the differences between pages and frames.

And what the connection between Linux and the Web scripting? Can you enlighten me?

As for tech support, the person will just send it back to be fixed under warranty.

And lied over cause you know nothing about thing you bought? Smart move, man!.


WAKE UP, wash ur face.
Try to socialize, will ya? And take a flight some time, go to place around the world, befriend with many-many people. Then you'll know that this world is much bigger than you know, with people that have different need [from you] in it.

Reply Score: 2

andih Member since:
2010-03-27

"Linux my friend does not teach you how a computer works."

It sure taught me. Had to learn everything from the bottom and up.

Reply Score: 3

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06


I hope you will buy something else and quit bitching about something that won't really affect you.


Direct purchase is the only way one could ever be affected by this? Your precious.

Is it "bitching" because I don't agree with general purpose hardware being locked to a specific brand name of general purpose software or because I don't agree with your take on the situation?


Many viruses and malware have gone back to installing themselves in the MBR ... so it does benefit the end user that don't know anything about computer security (which was the point I was trying to make about them not ever having to care how it works).


We have MBR protection in the BIOS already and it remains under the control of the device owner not the vendor.

The risk is OS level code changing BIOS settings is it? So, tie that BIOS locked MBR to a physical dip-switch; now software can't affect it yet it still remains under the control of the device owner not the vendor.


Windows 8 will use less resources and it won't grow "heavy" ... pretty much like Windows 2000, Windows XP and Windows 7 and 8 (which uses less resources than 7 btw, I am running the platform preview .. so I actually use this stuff before shouting my mouth off)


For win7 and eventually win8, sure, we'll see how those prove out. You included WinXP on the list though? Now I know your just poking fun; or you've never actually upgraded winXP Pre~SP1 to SP3+patches. Please, tell me the latter is true and I can have the pentest contract. Please, please, please.


There is nothing stopping Fred from learning about computers, it all over bloody Google. Linux my friend does not teach you how a computer works.


Sure, Fred may only be interested in theory and reading the inter-webs might be enough. Why should that limit Greg who does want to learn through direct experience? Greg wants to dig into the programming code and see how a kernel interacts with hardware; can't be done in a VM, can't be done with win8. But hey, let's limit everyone to Fred's level of interest.


Not being able to install random OS != Restricting Information.


It does, however, restrict owner's control over the device. Why should a device owner not be in control of there own purchased property? Do you have someone that restricts access to your own house keys; who locks and unlocks the front door for you "for your own good" (tm)?

Why should one person's choice to be locked out of there purchased property justify anyone else being locked out of personal property?


I am pretty sure that many of the strongest proponents of Linux won't be able to tell you the differences between pages and frames.


A reference to system memory; clever.

Again, why should one person not learning about system memory management through direct experience with the OS limit anything else there is to be learned?


As for tech support, the person will just send it back to be fixed under warranty.


There are so many situations where sending hardware back to the vendor is not acceptable that this statement of yours is outright laughable. I do hope you stand up at your local comedy club's open mic night.

Reply Score: 3

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

lucas_maximus,

"You are buying a device that is sold as running Windows 8. If you don't like it ... buy something else."


If we continue on this path, then that may be the only choice we will have; anyone wanting to develop or run non-mainstream operating systems will have to pay a premium for niche hardware which explicitly supports it. Not only does this hinder accessibility of alternative operating systems for users, it discourages their development and significantly increases barriers to entry. Ordinary hardware, because of explicit restrictions, will no longer do dual booting, no user mods, no device re-purposing, etc.

This is a less desirable future than one where devices are open and unrestricted, and users are free to use their own hardware however they see fit. We need to be as vocal as possible about the issues to raise public awareness as much as we can.

Reply Score: 9

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

]

If we continue on this path, then that may be the only choice we will have; anyone wanting to develop or run non-mainstream operating systems will have to pay a premium for niche hardware which explicitly supports it.


Audiophiles already do this. They pay a premium for the extra "audio" quality. Some results are amazing (my friend has such a system).

I already do this for bicycle parts and I often buy components for my bicycle that are worth more than the bicycle itself. I run quite a lot of bikes from the late 70s to the mid-90s and getting parts for these push bikes is a pain.

You have to pay for you hobby unfortunately. Running things like Haiku, Linux and other things are mostly done by hobbyists or by professionals which already have the correct hardware requirements

It much like how I pay for having a custom PC, I have a 16GB main workstation, with Two Graphics card (for playing games), and a Dual Xeon Board with dual SSDs ... I pay the premium for all of this, because other than foreign women, good beer, weight lifting and bikes I also I like computers and I am lucky enough to have a job that started off like a hobby.

Not only does this hinder accessibility of alternative operating systems for users, it discourages their development and significantly increases barriers to entry. Ordinary hardware, because of explicit restrictions, will no longer do dual booting, no user mods, no device re-purposing, etc.


So? As I keep on saying, nobody complains that the Kindle (my e-Ink basic version 4) only boot the Amazon OS (I have no idea, nor I care what it is) and lets me only buy books from the amazon store. It is a product that lets me read books, I really do not care even if the OS is locked down ... I bought a Kindle to act like a Kindle.

This is a less desirable future than one where devices are open and unrestricted, and users are free to use their own hardware however they see fit. We need to be as vocal as possible about the issues to raise public awareness as much as we can.


I said it elsewhere this will actually open up a market for enthusiasts, since there will be companies (much like AmigaOS scene) that will exploit this niche. This will create some jobs and new software products.

I think the real issue is that people don't want to have to actually you know pay money for something they are interested in, hobbies cost money. I have spent a small fortune on my bicycles, a large fortune on good booze, more on taking nice ladies out, and I have paid over the odds for my obsolete SGI machines.

Edited 2012-01-13 21:10 UTC

Reply Score: 0

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

lucas_maximus,

"Audiophiles already do this. They pay a premium for the extra 'audio' quality. Some results are amazing."

"I already do this for bicycle parts and I often buy components for my bicycle that are worth more than the bicycle itself...."

You're ability to tweak and upgrade your off the shelf audio/bike equipment is great (seriously), so why shouldn't we be able to enjoy the same sort of tinkering benefits with off the shelf computers?


Is it just a linux phobia or are you against installing any alternatives on off the shelf hardware?

What harm does it do you if others have control over their own computers?

I'm having trouble isolating your true motivation for speaking so ardently against open consumer technology, would you mind explaining it more directly?

Edited 2012-01-13 21:36 UTC

Reply Score: 8

AnyoneEB Member since:
2008-10-26


"Not only does this hinder accessibility of alternative operating systems for users, it discourages their development and significantly increases barriers to entry. Ordinary hardware, because of explicit restrictions, will no longer do dual booting, no user mods, no device re-purposing, etc.


So? As I keep on saying, nobody complains that the Kindle (my e-Ink basic version 4) only boot the Amazon OS (I have no idea, nor I care what it is) and lets me only buy books from the amazon store. It is a product that lets me read books, I really do not care even if the OS is locked down ... I bought a Kindle to act like a Kindle.
"

The Kindle runs Linux. Here's how to root it: http://www.turnkeylinux.org/blog/kindle-root . In addition to having a terminal and just generally being able to use the device as a normal computer, the most immediately useful addition is the ability to load books over wi-fi instead of having to use a USB cable.

Locking bootloaders as Microsoft is intending to require OEMs to do and as some smartphone manufacturers already do is bad; the vast majority of users won't care, but it's still extremely anti-competitive. As has been mentioned in this thread already, very few people install Linux on their desktops/laptops (most of which came with Windows pre-installed), but a lot of people use Android, which never would have been developed (or, at least, would be very different) if there were no Linux users because very few people owned desktops with unlocked bootloaders.

It is not comparable to the audiophile or bike enthusiast examples. There you are talking about people being able to combine specialized parts, possibly with (parts of) consumer-grade equipment. Locked bootloaders are extra hardware/software limiting the capabilities of systems being bought. (To be fair, there is a security concern of boot-level viruses... but the cost to make an option to unlock the bootloader that requires physical access is negligible and the article says that Microsoft is banning OEMs from even having that choice.)

Reply Score: 5

zlynx Member since:
2005-07-20

Do people care how a car works ... Nope.


Except that quite a lot of people do. That's why my friends joke that I must have the only unmodified Subaru STI in the world. And even though I don't change the car's hardware or programming, I know how it works and I do care a lot about tires and alignment.

One of my best friends has already started modding his Prius. He's got a display that shows him all kinds of extra engine and battery data. He'll probably be running custom firmware by summer.

Reply Score: 7

ulricr Member since:
2012-01-14

the author of the article istwisting reality a bit to drum up some controversy, because no one will be buying "arm laptops" as in a PC laptop equivalent. no one owns any application that runs on ARM! there is no point in running windows on ARM to use it like a desktop, that is not compatible with any of the apps people use PCs for. instead, you'd use an intel powered ultra book. this arm windows is all about iPad like devices, not PCs

Reply Score: 0

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

ulricr,

"no one owns any application that runs on ARM! there is no point in running windows on ARM to use it like a desktop, that is not compatible with any of the apps people use PCs for. instead, you'd use an intel powered ultra book. this arm windows is all about iPad like devices, not PCs"

Ah, from a windows-centric point of view, I understand your argument. However maybe you don't realize that linux (to say nothing of android) does have existing apps that will likely run on these ARM targets, but only if they are not locked down.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer
by fithisux on Fri 13th Jan 2012 20:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer"
fithisux Member since:
2006-01-22

Microsoft MUST DIE!!


I long for this day.

Reply Score: 9

RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer
by terrakotta on Sun 15th Jan 2012 11:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer"
terrakotta Member since:
2010-04-21

As you stated yourself, software development has to happen. It has to happen for these devices too, which means that you have to be able to test your software on it. Or will only select developers be allowed to test-run their software on these devices (by extra costs of course)? Selling these products as a whole has nothing to do with locking those users in place. If you have an open system, someone not interested in developing/the open character of it, will not open up the system. But somebody who is, should be able to. How else are you going to educate your students? By only buying very expensive development boards, or by buying cheap mass-manufactured systems that are open enough to hack on? Electrical/electronical systems are not magical, perhaps they are more abstract and more difficult for the average user, but a user should be able to change his payed-for products to his needs if he wants to. If you remove this possibility, your entire education system is drained down the loo, because most of the time people get interested in software development by tinkering, playing and breaking things, and as you said, software development has to happen.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by darseex on Fri 13th Jan 2012 17:34 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
darseex Member since:
2010-12-06

Your analogy sucks. Here's a better one:

Imagine that 95%+ of all microwaves ever made were bought off by Pizza Hut to disallow anything other than reheating cold pizza. From a technical standpoint, there's no difference between these 'pizza-only' microwaves and the ones we have now, other than the new limitation on types of food you're allowed to cook with it.

This would naturally be touted as a feature -- no longer will you accidentally burn the roof of your mouth with Hot Pockets. It's safe and secure.

Naturally, nobody would like this turn of events other than Pizza Hut, but hey, they include a Pizza Hut logo on the box, so what right have we to complain?

Reply Score: 17

v RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by lucas_maximus on Fri 13th Jan 2012 18:48 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
This is a wide brush kind of thing.
by whartung on Fri 13th Jan 2012 17:15 UTC
whartung
Member since:
2005-07-06

Basically, they're trying to ensure the "walled garden" experience in the tablet and PDA market. The walled garden experience isn't limited just to the the users, but to developer as well. For example, developers in walled gardens (in theory) don't have to worry so much about DRM etc., because it comes with the platform. (How effective it is is a different discussion).

So, this is the mechanism to try and keep some manufacturer from coming out with a "rootable" tablet that lets folks get to the soft, creamy center of these "hardened" devices.

Linux et al has been riding on the coattails of Windows for its entire life. Linux was viable because it was pretty much compatible (mod drivers) with the hardware that was being built for Windows. As Linux became more popular, more direct support showed up in terms of drivers, etc.

Back In The Day, the rallying cry around something new was "does it run Linux". Well, for the moment, for hardware designed to run W8 on ARM, the answer is "no".

Whether the manufacturers will be able to create similar boards without the secure boot system, or alternate secure boot systems, will be an interesting question. Followed by will they bother at all.

Long term, I think they will. I think the cat is out of the barn, and there will be solid, appealing ARM hardware for the alternate OS market. Not just raw boards like Beagle Board or Raspberry Pi. But complete "white box" tablets and ultra/net/notebooks and settops. The vertical market will still want access to this kind of hardware and won't want to jump through the hoops to live in the walled gardens of MS and Apple.

Reply Score: 5

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Long term, I think they will. I think the cat is out of the barn, and there will be solid, appealing ARM hardware for the alternate OS market. Not just raw boards like Beagle Board or Raspberry Pi. But complete "white box" tablets and ultra/net/notebooks and settops. The vertical market will still want access to this kind of hardware and won't want to jump through the hoops to live in the walled gardens of MS and Apple.


They will and they will sell it as a feature. While most people on here will be "OMG the M$ evils" some businesses will make an effort and target the niche.

In fact you will probably get a accurate number of those support alternate operating systems because they will be buying these devices.

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Linux et al has been riding on the coattails of Windows for its entire life. Linux was viable because it was pretty much compatible (mod drivers) with the hardware that was being built for Windows. As Linux became more popular, more direct support showed up in terms of drivers, etc.

Back In The Day, the rallying cry around something new was "does it run Linux". Well, for the moment, for hardware designed to run W8 on ARM, the answer is "no".

Whether the manufacturers will be able to create similar boards without the secure boot system, or alternate secure boot systems, will be an interesting question. Followed by will they bother at all.

Long term, I think they will. I think the cat is out of the barn, and there will be solid, appealing ARM hardware for the alternate OS market. Not just raw boards like Beagle Board or Raspberry Pi. But complete "white box" tablets and ultra/net/notebooks and settops. The vertical market will still want access to this kind of hardware and won't want to jump through the hoops to live in the walled gardens of MS and Apple.


WTF? This is a very peculiar outlook. I would almost call it history revisionism.

Put it this way: everywhere in computing other than the x86 desktop/laptop PC, Linux dominates. An ordinary person might "run" say two copies of Windows on their home desktop and laptop, but perhaps six copies of Linux in their router, on their TV, their DVD player, their smartphone, their NAS device and their printer. Web services which they may use which run on very large computing arrays, such as Google/Youtube, Wikipedia or Facebook all run on Linux.

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/facebook-work-nuts-bolts-technology-ex...

Facebook uses a variety of services, tools, and programming languages to make up its core infrastructure. At the front end, their servers run a LAMP (Linux, Apache, MySQL, and PHP) stack with Memcache.

http://gizmodo.com/5854207/heres-facebooks-massive-arctic-server-fa...

BTW, a good approach to supplying power for massive Linux server farms such as these would be to run ARM servers rather than x86 servers.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/02/hp-and-calxedas-moonshot-arm-ser...

So, anyway, exactly how on earth is Linux supposed to be "riding on Windows coattails"?

Edited 2012-01-14 01:10 UTC

Reply Score: 3

A little over the top...
by saynte on Fri 13th Jan 2012 17:44 UTC
saynte
Member since:
2007-12-10

Thom's blurb is a little over the top.

Doesn't the same Microsoft document set to rest the fears that new x86 PCs would all be locked-out from booting Linux? It does say that x86 systems must be capable of disabling the secure boot, or am I reading it wrong? Isn't it better that they only require this on the devices that don't even exist yet, for an operating system that isn't even released? As opposed to a huge market (x86 PCs)...

Even with the Secure Boot, can't Fedora or Ubuntu just get a grub-key included on the devices so they can boot in secure mode?

Reply Score: 1

RE: A little over the top...
by Alfman on Fri 13th Jan 2012 18:38 UTC in reply to "A little over the top..."
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

saynte,

"Even with the Secure Boot, can't Fedora or Ubuntu just get a grub-key included on the devices so they can boot in secure mode?"

Even if the vendor is well intentioned and wants to sign loaders for it's users, secure boot becomes insecure when used in this manor. Consider that if a grub-like loader were signed, then malware would trivially install grub to load itself at boot.

It's problems like this that make "secure boot" look like it was designed to take users out of control rather than improve system security - a more apt name would be "restricted boot".

Also, keep in mind that overwriting boot loaders already implies a system-wide compromise, so it is fair to question whether "secure boot" is a security mechanism at all instead of being a user restriction mechanism.

Edit: All of my concerns would be ameliorated if the keys would always be under the control of system owners. It is my main objection to the whole scheme. There's no technical reason for security features to be under third party control, other than DRM.

Edited 2012-01-13 18:49 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: A little over the top...
by saynte on Fri 13th Jan 2012 19:35 UTC in reply to "RE: A little over the top..."
saynte Member since:
2007-12-10

What you say is all true, thank you for bringing up these points in such an easy to read and, more importantly, reasoned argument.

My beef (and the reason for my post) is the tone of Thom's post.

The shrill, wailing, tone of Thom's post distracts from the issues; I was merely trying to extract some of the other (what I feel) relevant questions and facts of interest in this story.

Reply Score: 1

Windows + ARM : Fail #2
by FunkyELF on Fri 13th Jan 2012 17:48 UTC
FunkyELF
Member since:
2006-07-26

This is the 2nd fail for Windows and ARM.

The first being that there will be no "desktop" application in which to run the likes of photoshop, Excel, or anything else keyboard/mouse oriented.

This 2nd fail is way more epic though. I could find a way to deal without having a desktop application, but no dual booting Android, Ubuntu (or other ARM distros)... no way I would want one of these devices.

Reply Score: 2

GraphiteCube
Member since:
2009-04-01

If Microsoft requires the hardware running Windows 8 (ARM version) not to be unlocked for installing other systems, why don't device manufacturers offer devices with the same hardware but install *nix/ other systems? Just like Windows Phone and Android phones.

Reply Score: 1

adkilla Member since:
2005-07-07

The same reason why you are forced to buy a copy of Windows with 99% of the PCs today.

Reply Score: 4

In all fairness,
by Kalessin on Fri 13th Jan 2012 18:03 UTC
Kalessin
Member since:
2007-01-18

Microsoft may not have lied. They may very well have not been planning to force OEMs to restrict boxes to Windows using secure boot when they said that they weren't. But it doesn't really matter much. They went back on what they said, once again proving that you can't trust what they say.

And regardless of whether secure boot ends up being locked on X86 systems or not, this is a total dick move. What value is there to the consumer in locking down the device this way? None. It's just screwing us over. I so hope that someone finds a way to take Microsoft to court over this. But I guess that the main thing that we can pray for at this point is that Microsoft won't force OEMs to lock down x86 devices.

Reply Score: 7

RE: In all fairness,
by UltraZelda64 on Fri 13th Jan 2012 19:14 UTC in reply to "In all fairness,"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Microsoft may not have lied. They may very well have not been planning to force OEMs to restrict boxes to Windows using secure boot when they said that they weren't. But it doesn't really matter much. They went back on what they said, once again proving that you can't trust what they say.

The way I see it, it's as good as lying. If you can't (or don't) keep your word, keep your trap shut. Otherwise, I don't care what exactly happened--the end result is no different than lying. Same difference.

Fuck you Microsoft.

Reply Score: 4

A humble doubt
by franksands on Fri 13th Jan 2012 18:09 UTC
franksands
Member since:
2009-08-18

From what I saw, MS is not saying that only Win8 is allowed, but that only OSes through secure boot are allowed. Wouldn't it be possible to make a Linux or other OS boot through secure boot? Or create a boot manager in the same sense that we had LiLo in the beggining of Linux?

Reply Score: 2

RE: A humble doubt
by lucas_maximus on Fri 13th Jan 2012 18:57 UTC in reply to "A humble doubt"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

No, because the GPL prevents it (GRUB).

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: A humble doubt
by twitterfire on Fri 13th Jan 2012 20:02 UTC in reply to "RE: A humble doubt"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

No, because the GPL prevents it (GRUB).

So blame MS because Grub decided to use idiotic software licenses.

Reply Score: 1

Wait and see is not an option
by acobar on Fri 13th Jan 2012 18:24 UTC
acobar
Member since:
2005-11-15

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety", Benjamin Franklin

"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I was Protestant.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.", Martin Niemöller (one of many versions)

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.", George Santayana

Discuss, comment, spread, compare. The lessons must be learned.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Wait and see is not an option
by PieterGen on Fri 13th Jan 2012 18:29 UTC in reply to "Wait and see is not an option"
PieterGen Member since:
2012-01-13

Discuss, comment, spread, compare. The lessons must be learned.


Let's not compare immoral trade practices to military dicatures please......we're only talking * operating systems * here - as much as I loathe the dirty tricks of Microsoft, Apple and the lot.......

Reply Score: 2

acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

No, we are talking about the need to watch what others can do that can affect our life. It does not matter that the same can be also applied to other subjects. In fact, if you think about, it all boils down to a common ground: the frequently unfair behavior that human beings insist on develop in society.

Reply Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

GODWIN'D!!

Reply Score: 2

Inverted rules for ARM and non-ARM?
by raboof on Fri 13th Jan 2012 18:49 UTC
raboof
Member since:
2005-07-24

Adding some highlighting/cherry-picking of my own:

On non-ARM systems, (...). A physically present user must be allowed to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup without possession of PKpriv. (...). Disabling Secure MUST NOT be possible on ARM systems


Am I reading this right? You must be able to disable it on non-ARM, but must not be able to disable it on ARM?

Reply Score: 3

bouhko Member since:
2010-06-24

Yeah that really shows how purely anti-competitive this demand is. There is not a single technical motivation beneficial to the user behind it.

I guess they realized that if they force SecureBoot on x86 as well, people would get angry because they can't install earlier Windows version.

So they are trying to sneak this new "feature" only in the ARM-based PC since earlier Windows versions don't work on ARM anyway.

I have no words to describe how little respect I have for the people that came up with this brillant idea.

Reply Score: 5

hechacker1 Member since:
2005-08-01

Well then hackers and eventually users that want to get out of the walled garden will choose the model with x86 architecture.

Intel recently released their SoC, and it's faster yet within the same power envelope as existing ARM solutions.

AMD is hard at work developing their own version.

So an ARM licencee may actually stand to lose here if enough people care about running Windows or other OSes without boot time restrictions.

Edited 2012-01-14 02:01 UTC

Reply Score: 2

dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20

That means I should be waiting on a MIPS version of windows 8 ?

By the way I'm typing this on an ARM tablet (TF101), which is awesome with linux. But the current trend of locking the bootloader (mostly for security purpose... DRM security purpose), is depressing, while I understand the (stupid) business requirement of doing so, it clearly push tablet into the niche of media consumption, and not as a viable business computing platform (which makes it less relevant than PDAs).

Reply Score: 3

lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

Anyone ... Tablet Device that is locked down at the firmware level and you can only run one OS on it?

Reply Score: 4

dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

I pad is not advertised as a PC. People easily associate it with apple walled garden approach they have been consistently executing for years now . Windows PCs are another story. MS is clear they will pitch the usual openness argument against Apple product as one of the major advantages and state their tablets are indeed true PCs and use x86 sibling devices as a moniker to further confuse the consumer. They did't for example advertise XBOX as a gaming PC.

Edited 2012-01-13 20:19 UTC

Reply Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I pad is not advertised as a PC. People easily associate it with apple walled garden approach they have been consistently executing for years now .


A Macintosh is also a PC, you can run any Operating system on it as long as it is has been ported to PowerPC or x86. It might be stretch-arm-strongly to adapt another OS to this platform.

How is an Apple Laptop Walled Garden? Unless you are very short or not a lot of strength in your ARMS ... I think it will be quite simple to peek over the wall ... and see the next door neighbours.

Windows PCs are another story. MS is clear they will pitch the usual openness argument against Apple product as one of the major advantages and state their tablets are indeed true PCs and use x86 sibling devices as a moniker to further confuse the consumer. They did't for example advertise XBOX as a gaming PC.


Actually most Windows Phone 7 adverts were along the lines of "get shit done, and it compliments your life not takes it over", this was all done while people were holding the phone with their hand ... which is attached to both an arm and an ARM.

Windows 7 was about "getting shit done easily" every advert was about getting stuff done. However is only needed maybe a maximum 1 arm to operate.

They advertised the XBOX as a console, the original XBOX worked like a console, looked like a console, behaved like a console ... you know the saying about "ducks" ... it applies here. The controller didn't require you to use your arms quite in the same way the Wii did.

As I said before. Thom is up in arms about the fact that they will be restricted ... but says he has an iPad 2 that no doubt he is holding with his arm.


Wait a sec ... the Windows device sounds exactly like an iPad 2 ... proprietary operating system, can't install another without hacking the system and has a custom UI specific to the Operating system.

But one he is willing to buy, whilst the other because it comes from Microsoft he is soo up in arms ... he won't by an ARM.

Edited 2012-01-13 21:51 UTC

Reply Score: 2

PieterGen Member since:
2012-01-13

Yes, Apple is the prototype of walled garden. I prefer not to buy Apple products for that reason.

Both Microsofts and Apples have dubious business ethics (to put it very mildly).

However, Apple's software sucks much less than Microsofts. This week I had to install some Microsoft software for a friend. OMG, do they screw things up - if you want to make simple things VERY complicated, call Microsoft.

Reply Score: 1

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

How many times did I have to put the word "arm" into that post and you still didn't get I was mucking about?

Edited 2012-01-13 22:16 UTC

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

However, Apple's software sucks much less than Microsofts. This week I had to install some Microsoft software for a friend. OMG, do they screw things up - if you want to make simple things VERY complicated, call Microsoft.


REALLY?

PHP on IIS ... 1. download PHP 5.3 for IIS, 2. Install PHP for IIS, 3. Enjoy PHP on IIS.

Visual Studio 2010 (the most complicated development IDE in existence).

1) Insert CD, 2) Agree, 3) What to install, 4) Install

*I know there is a few bullshit steps in between that take like a second.*

Lesson to you ... don't tell lies about Windows.

Reply Score: 2

righard Member since:
2007-12-26

...if you want to make simple things VERY complicated, call Microsoft


Visual Studio 2010 (the most complicated development IDE in existence).


;)

Edited 2012-01-14 20:17 UTC

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Both Microsofts and Apples have dubious business ethics (to put it very mildly).


Compared to who? and in what way as you seem to know so much?

How are their business practices dubious?

Why don't you work for the consumer trading standards as you seem to know so much about this?#

You must be an expert on business ethics, why don't you tell me how they are unethical. Do they sacrifice a child per Macbook?

Reply Score: 2

dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

I don't know about Thom but I don't care about Ipad because I firmly believe its days of market dominance are numbered and being a luxury gadget it will ultimately occupy the same niche as macs. The remaining majority of market is to be grabbed and I'm afraid MS is poised to get there eventually and won't tolerate any competition. This move only confirms that.
MS is always about absolute market dominance and unification that works mostly to its advantage.

Reply Score: 3

It doesn't bother me very much
by twitterfire on Fri 13th Jan 2012 19:34 UTC
twitterfire
Member since:
2008-09-11

I consider Linux crappy enough on the desktop and I don't find neither Gnome nor KDE being usable on a tablet.

The only Linux based os suitable for tablets is Android.

But wait. What? We already have Android tablets.

It's not like MS will stop you from buying a tablet with Android installed on it. And unlike on the PC, MS will have very little market share so they won't have much to impose to either manufacturers or users.

Why don't we blame Apple for selling tablets that only run iOS? Why don't we become enraged and demand Apple to let us install Ubuntu on iPad? We always blame Microsoft instead.

Reply Score: 2

RE: It doesn't bother me very much
by Luminair on Fri 13th Jan 2012 19:56 UTC in reply to "It doesn't bother me very much"
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

apple was always locked and microsoft was always not. apple created their computer and microsoft rode shotgun on the inter-compatible personal computer revolution.

microsoft deserves credit for being part of open ecosystems. apple and microsoft deserve scorn for being part of closed ecosystems

Reply Score: 5

sukru Member since:
2006-11-19

Yes, until a few years ago they had a really open state. Windows Mobile (not the new Windows Phone) was the closest to most open system on mobile platforms. They allowed sites like XDA to hack/modify the OS any way they want, and redistribute it freely. You could change kernel, UI, and all parts of the system. And the pinnacle product HD2 was the most open phone, which allowed (dual) booting Windows Mobile 6, Android, Meego, Ubuntu, Windows Phone 7, and whatnot.

However, those times seems to be long over.

Reply Score: 3

sukru Member since:
2006-11-19

Yes, until a few years ago they had a really open state. Windows Mobile (not the new Windows Phone) was the closest to most open system on mobile platforms. They allowed sites like XDA to hack/modify the OS any way they want, and redistributae it freely. You could change kernel, UI, and all parts of the system. And the pinnacle product HD2 was the most open phone, which allowed (dual) booting Windows Mobile 6, Android, Meego, Ubuntu, Windows Phone 7, and whatnot.

However, those times seems to be long over.

Reply Score: 2

RE: It doesn't bother me very much
by dsmogor on Fri 13th Jan 2012 20:25 UTC in reply to "It doesn't bother me very much"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

Correct while stock desktop oriented distros are unfit for tablets there are ones attempts to specialize there with county and kde plasma bring the most visible examples. Besides windows 8 arm devices will also come in more traditional form factors.
Android tablets are not powerful enough to bring an sensible experience with those distros but devices designed to carry full windows would.

Reply Score: 3

RE: It doesn't bother me very much
by juzzlin on Mon 16th Jan 2012 09:36 UTC in reply to "It doesn't bother me very much"
juzzlin Member since:
2011-05-06

Why don't we blame Apple for selling tablets that only run iOS? Why don't we become enraged and demand Apple to let us install Ubuntu on iPad? We always blame Microsoft instead.


Because Apple provides the hardware AND the software. Microsoft Windows is a separate product.

Reply Score: 2

...
by Hiev on Fri 13th Jan 2012 20:12 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

Hey OEM vendors, the solution is simple, allow us to buy hardware w/o Windows installed.

Thank you.

Reply Score: 3

RE: ...
by twitterfire on Fri 13th Jan 2012 20:24 UTC in reply to "..."
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

Hey OEM vendors, the solution is simple, allow us to buy hardware w/o Windows installed.

Thank you.


Oh, but you can. You can buy Apple Ipad, Motorola Xoom, Asus Transformer, Samsung Galaxy Tab, etc.

And guess what? I guess what, I think that it will be impossible to install Windows 8 on Ipad or galaxy Tab and nobody is enraged against Apple or Samsung.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: ...
by dsmogor on Fri 13th Jan 2012 20:28 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

I wouldn't be so sure with tablets. Of course as long as Microsoft decides decide to support such "conversion". Anyway they were very anxious to put windows on OLPC.
Besides I wouldn't generalize. There was huge outcry about locked bootloaders in those devices (Ipad aside).
Android upgrade woes can also be seen as an evidence people care what os choice they have with their devices.

Edited 2012-01-13 20:32 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: ...
by Alfman on Fri 13th Jan 2012 20:49 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

twitterfire,

"And guess what? I guess what, I think that it will be impossible to install Windows 8 on Ipad or galaxy Tab and nobody is enraged against Apple or Samsung."

It's not hypocrisy, hackers (in the righteous sense of the word) do want computing devices to be open all around. Many of us do criticize apple over it's control too.


An inescapable difference though is that microsoft's locked bootloader implementation was drafted for and incorporated into UEFI, an industry-wide standard. This means it's going to be everywhere, not just on MS brand name devices. In my opinion this is much worse and much more alarming than locks in localized firmwares.

Edit: To re-iterate, the issue is having a UEFI standard which mandates inclusion of security features which can be abused to lock the owner out of their own hardware. I don't care who the controlling party is (MS or not), it's wrong that a standard would lock users out of their own computers.

Edited 2012-01-13 21:03 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: ...
by Cromat on Fri 13th Jan 2012 20:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
Cromat Member since:
2009-12-15

Still even though I prefer Linux, I think we are being too hard on Microsoft for this.. Apple, Samsung, etc as previously mentioned are just as responsible. Why is it we only care about the vendor hold 90% market share. If Microsoft goes under, then we will pick on Apple, come on people stop making noise just to be heard and get linux in the spot light.

Reply Score: 1

RE: ...
by westlake on Sat 14th Jan 2012 00:05 UTC in reply to "..."
westlake Member since:
2010-01-07

Hey OEM vendors, the solution is simple, allow us to buy hardware w/o Windows installed.


Hey Geek. the OEM system install has been the gold standard in the consumer market for thirty years. We can make something of Android. Metro looks promising. Bare Bones doesn't sell worth spit.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: ...
by dsmogor on Sat 14th Jan 2012 00:12 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

That really depends on country.

Reply Score: 2

Um...and....we already deal with this today
by Cromat on Fri 13th Jan 2012 20:45 UTC
Cromat
Member since:
2009-12-15

Not that this is a direct example, but think about this, Microsoft is not doing anything different than apple. Apple requires that you buy their hardware, microsoft is requiring you use their OS on a piece of hardware. Sure you can run other operating systems on a mac, but I can't run OS X on another machine, I am forced into buying their hardware. They are a different issue but the same principal. Another example is the IPAD (aka competitor to windows arm tablets)...I can't put another OS on it, and does anyone complain no. Why should Microsoft always be the target? Apple is just as guilty... I think we need to stop blaming MS for all the Linux adoption issues, the real issue is its not sold by OEM's and not supported by hardware vendors, if drivers were all made equal we would see Linux all over the place.

Edited 2012-01-13 20:48 UTC

Reply Score: 2

shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

Tablets (of any sort) != General Purpose PC.

Win 8 on Arm and this enforcement of these boot restrictions is nothing more than an attempt to kill Android on Arm.
Remember that MS has deals with just about every phone maker out there to pay then for the honour of being able to run Android. Then there are the OEM deals that they have with HP, Dell, ACER, Asus etc. They get windows at a few $$$ a pop. MS only has to hint that instead of $5 a pop, it is going to be $50 each. Bang goes their profits.

Ergo, MS has the muscle to make this happen. Android on ARM cpu's will soon be extinct (2yrs max) apart from Google itself and a few others like B&N. Even Amazon could buckle and replace the Linux kernel on kindles with Windows-embedded.

Do you really want that?

Reply Score: 4

Cromat Member since:
2009-12-15

No, but we have to be realistic sometimes as well...this maybe the reality in the future....So build your own pc and run Linux, get everyone to do it and OEM's will abandon Microsoft if no one uses it...Call me when that happens. Or get corporations to switch to Linux on personal computers. I know my company has been testing out Linux and OS X as options and funny enough OS X works cleaner with some of our network security. So quite complaining about a tablet market as that is only where the restriction is now and get the community working on converting businesses where the majority of the OS install base is.

Reply Score: 1

dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

Will you be able to assemble your own tablet? What I'm trying to say is we are in the verge going back to square one with mobile Linux. Remember how many devices were available with it in pre-android times despite Linux being perfectly capable to run on arm? Remember being stuck with lousy wince (palm was not open to other hw makers) with almost non-existent, overpriced competition (zaurus and Nokia Nxxx)?

Reply Score: 4

Why does Thom cry?
by ViktorRabe on Fri 13th Jan 2012 21:13 UTC
ViktorRabe
Member since:
2011-12-30

Robert Pogson has stated many times that Android on ARM will rule the world and kick Microsoft's butt!

http://www.mrpogson.com

You don't believe Robert Pogson!? You will, Mr. Holwerda, you will!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why does Thom cry?
by lucas_maximus on Fri 13th Jan 2012 22:43 UTC in reply to "Why does Thom cry?"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

HIS NAME WAS ROBERT POGSON.

HIS NAME WAS ROBERT POGSON.

HIS NAME WAS ROBERT POGSON.

HIS NAME WAS ROBERT POGSON.

HIS NAME WAS ROBERT POGSON.

Reply Score: 1

NEVER HAPPEN
by antidroid on Fri 13th Jan 2012 23:56 UTC
antidroid
Member since:
2010-01-05

I wonder how long it will take until Windows computers will ONLY talk to other windows computers AND windows servers, and servers will only talk to windows computers.

Naaa! Never happen.

Muahahahahahaaaaaa!

Until it does. Just like........Oh, my.......this.

Reply Score: 3

Can't possibly be legal
by cmost on Sat 14th Jan 2012 00:05 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

I'm sorry, but common sense tells me this can't possibly be legal. When I purchase a computer, I am buying the hardware. The software is available only through a license which I can either accept or reject. The computer, though is MINE. If I am not permitted to run the operating system of MY choosing on MY computer then I will promptly return it to the manufacturer for a full refund. I urge everyone to do the same. If Microsoft is going to lock OEM computer vendors into Windows 8 then it better damn well be prepared to give away the operating system with the computer at no extra cost whatsoever to the vendor or the consumer. When I buy a new blu-ray player, I don't have to pay extra for its software because there's no way to reject it. What Microsoft and many computer manufacturers fail to realize is that there are a lot of folks who don't just dabble with Linux or BSD; they use it every day and their primary OS. I personally haven't run a Windows OS on any computer I've owned for over eight years. I don't like Windows, I have less love for Microsoft and frankly, I feel that Linux offers better security and more power. Fortunately, I'm skilled enough that I can build my own computers from scratch (and typically do about every two years.) Unfortunately, not everyone has that option. Instead of letting Microsoft run roughshod over consumer choice and their rights simply to entrench its own inferior, buggy crapware, it's time consumers spoke loudly with their pocketbooks. Just say "NO" to UEFI and Secure Boot.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Can't possibly be legal
by dsmogor on Sat 14th Jan 2012 00:11 UTC in reply to "Can't possibly be legal"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

As readily suggested here most consumers won't care until it's too late.

Reply Score: 4

magni
Member since:
2011-01-25

I just read through the whole thread...And I saw a lot of comments defending Microsofts decision.
What I didn't find was an argument for how it could possible be a good thing (for the consumer) to take away the ability to install whatever OS you like.

Sure, most people will not care, but that's really not an argument.

Sure, Apple and other companies denies you the ability to change OS. But that doesn't mean that Microsofts decision is good for the consumers.

And the fact that it is not possible to magically turn a microwave into a washing machine, is really not an argument for why it would be a good thing for the consumer that it is impossible to change the OS on his/her computing device.

Reply Score: 3

ulricr Member since:
2012-01-14

it would block root kits and other boot viruses from running

Reply Score: 0

magni Member since:
2011-01-25

That is actually a reasonable argument.

However, as I understand it, the secure boot would still block root kits and whatever even if there is a possibility to turn it off? I mean, of course, if you decide to turn it off you do not have the same protection anymore. But then it is up to the consumer to decide how the device he/she bought is going to be used.

What I'm basically trying to say is that, adding an artificial limitation like this is no good for the consumer.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Sat 14th Jan 2012 01:16 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

As horrible as it sounds I do think that it may not be as bad as people make out it to be. In the case of having a signed kernel/bootloader I could see the likes of Google and others signing their stuff because at the end of the day the cost to them as an organisation is probably only a few cents anyway.

The idea that alternative 'commercially available operating systems' maybe restricted is a grey area, the biggest threat is actually to the home brew computer enthusiasts who provide custom ROM's. It is amazing how after the home brew community fought tooth and nail to get hand set vendors to finally unlock their bootloader's and now we're seeing a whole new bootloader lock down occurring.

Side note I am surprised that we haven't see Apple embrace this technology given that it is more likely to be up their ally than Microsoft's. The sad part about the decision Microsoft made is it seems to be a process of 1 step forward and two steps back - they finally forced OEM's to embrace UEFI as a requirement for bundling Windows 8 but forces a lock down on devices that will come back to haunt them in the future. I truly believe it will come back to haunt them first because it reminds me of WGA when it came out with claims that it'll reduce piracy with the unintended consequence of pissing off a lot of loyal customers in the process thus adding one more straw on the proverbial horse whose back is about to break.

Edited 2012-01-14 01:21 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Sat 14th Jan 2012 06:29 UTC
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

Wow, 8 new pages of posts since this morning? This certainly seems to be a hot topic at the moment.

At any rate, as I've said over and over and over and over... When you buy a prebuilt "Designed for Windows 8" computer, you shouldn't expect it to work (properly) when you try to use it in a way not intended by its design. Whining about it doesn't change that. If you want to run a non-Windows 8 OS then DO NOT BUY A "DESIGNED FOR WINDOWS 8" computer.... dummy.

That being said, I think it should be made clear what "Designed for Windows 8" means. Whether that's a sticker on the thing that says "This hardware is locked to run Windows 8 only.", or whatever.

Fact: There are several alternatives to buying a "Designed for Windows 8" computer.

Fact: Nobody is forced to buy a "Designed for Windows 8" computer.

Fact: No amount of whining or ignoring will change the above two facts.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by lemur2 on Sat 14th Jan 2012 06:51 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Wow, 8 new pages of posts since this morning? This certainly seems to be a hot topic at the moment.

At any rate, as I've said over and over and over and over... When you buy a prebuilt "Designed for Windows 8" computer, you shouldn't expect it to work (properly) when you try to use it in a way not intended by its design. Whining about it doesn't change that. If you want to run a non-Windows 8 OS then DO NOT BUY A "DESIGNED FOR WINDOWS 8" computer.... dummy.

That being said, I think it should be made clear what "Designed for Windows 8" means. Whether that's a sticker on the thing that says "This hardware is locked to run Windows 8 only.", or whatever.

Fact: There are several alternatives to buying a "Designed for Windows 8" computer.

Fact: Nobody is forced to buy a "Designed for Windows 8" computer.

Fact: No amount of whining or ignoring will change the above two facts.


So, would you be happy if you bought a car that had a small badge which stated "designed for BrandMS petrol" in what was apparently advertising, but you later found out that, although it technically could run on any brand of petrol, it would physically only let you fill it with BrandMS petrol, which was many times as expensive?

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Sat 14th Jan 2012 07:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

So, would you be happy if you bought a car that had a small badge which stated "designed for BrandMS petrol" in what was apparently advertising, but you later found out that, although it technically could run on any brand of petrol, it would physically only let you fill it with BrandMS petrol, which was many times as expensive?

Aside of the fact that's a horrible comparison, sure. It's a sellers job to be honest about what they're selling. It's a buyers job to read the small print and know what they're buying. Does it matter what kind of petrol would technically work in your scenario? Nope. It only matters whether or not the seller was upfront about the limitation before your bought it, and whether or not you had sense enough to pay attention.

It's foolish to buy something and then piss yourself when it can't be used in a way that's not intended. Plain & simple.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by Alfman on Sat 14th Jan 2012 07:20 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

ilovebeer,

Adding to your lists:

Fact: Vendor locks restrict choice (that's the whole point of them)

Fact: The "designed for windows 8" computers would run alternate operating systems fine if not for the microsoft imposed restrictions.

Fact: The more vendors that lock hardware, the smaller the set of users who have the ability to try alternate operating systems on their hardware.

Fact: Independent development projects traditionally start out running on existing off the shelf hardware. When it is locked, it raises the bar to entry, creates fragmentation, and limits market potential.

Fact: Users who must buy (and tote) multiple devices to try out alternate operating systems will be less inclined to do so.

Fact: Locked devices prevent users from recycling/re-provisioning them when the manufacturer drops support.

Fact: Secure boot doesn't protect from operating system vulnerabilities.

Fact: Microsoft made dishonest statements regarding forcing OEMs to lock devices.

Fact: Once these devices hit the market, there will be no way within the UEFI spec to unlock just one device without compromising all of the other devices sharing the same platform keys.

Edited 2012-01-14 07:31 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Sat 14th Jan 2012 08:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Fact: Vendor locks restrict choice (that's the whole point of them)

Not exactly. It only restricts choice as pertaining to specific hardware (configurations). Companies do this to protect their interests, and it's completely within their legal right to do so.

Fact: The "designed for windows 8" computers would run alternate operating systems fine if not for the microsoft imposed restrictions.

Both incorrect and completely irrelevant. Any potential restrictions are imposed by the hardware vendor, not Microsoft. And as stated previously, companies have the legal right to protect their interests.

Fact: The more vendors that lock hardware, the smaller the set of users who have the ability to try alternate operating systems on their hardware.

Users still have several other options, all easily accessible. So while this may technically be correct, it has little real world impact.

Fact: Independent development projects traditionally start out running on existing off the shelf hardware. When it is locked, it raises the bar to entry, creates fragmentation, and limits market potential.

The moment "Designed for Windows 8" hardware hits the shelves, all the other hardware doesn't magically disappear. The existence of "Designed for Windows 8" hardware absolutely has no impact on the above.

Fact: Users who must buy (and tote) multiple devices to try out alternate operating systems will be less inclined to do so.

Generally, I agree. However, if a user wants to be able to try multiple operating systems on the same hardware, then that user should NOT purchase "Designed for Windows 8" hardware. If they do, they absolutely should not expect to use it in a way other than intended by the maker.

Fact: Locked devices prevent users from recycling/re-provisioning them when the manufacturer drops support.

In theory, yes. In practice, no.

Fact: Secure boot doesn't protect from operating system vulnerabilities.

False. Secure boot does in fact protect an operating system. The only debatable aspect is the level of protection it offers.

Fact: Microsoft made dishonest statements regarding forcing OEMs to lock devices.

False. Microsoft has not forced anyone into anything. Vendors choose to agree or disagree to Microsoft's licensing. Further, there's no proof anything Microsoft has said was dishonest at the time.

Fact: Once these devices hit the market, there will be no way within the UEFI spec to unlock just one device without compromising all of the other devices sharing the same platform keys.

Possibly true but no proof as of yet.

The only problem "Designed for Windows 8" hardware introduces is potentially restricting a users ability to use the hardware outside of its intent. If the users needs extend beyond what "Designed for Windows 8" offers, the user should NOT purchase "Designed for Windows 8" hardware. Instead, the user should elect one of the several other options available. There's simply no getting around this fact.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer
by bigdog on Sat 14th Jan 2012 08:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer"
bigdog Member since:
2011-07-06

As far as I can see you take a legal approach. Now back to the real world.

Since Microsoft is so dominant on the desktop, no producer in his right state of mind would produce anything other than "Designed for Windows 8" hardware.

So effectively, and not legally, all other os will have become useless.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Sun 15th Jan 2012 17:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

As far as I can see you take a legal approach. Now back to the real world.

The law exists in the real world. Pity you don't think so.

Since Microsoft is so dominant on the desktop, no producer in his right state of mind would produce anything other than "Designed for Windows 8" hardware.

Tons of them do already and that won't change the moment DFW8 hardware hits the shelves. All the existing non-DFW8 hardware won't magically disappear from existence. Non-DFW8 hardware will continue to be made from a variety of manufacturers. The sky is not falling.

So effectively, and not legally, all other os will have become useless.

Thankfully most people aren't foolish enough to subscribe to such a theory.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Alfman on Sat 14th Jan 2012 08:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

ilovebeer,

"Companies do this to protect their interests, and it's completely within their legal right to do so."

I didn't say it was illegal, I said it prohibits consumer choice.



"Both incorrect and completely irrelevant. Any potential restrictions are imposed by the hardware vendor, not Microsoft."

Please re-read the article then. The restriction is being imposed by microsoft specifically. And secondly, it's an artificial restriction prohibiting software which would otherwise work.



"So while this may technically be correct, it has little real world impact."

For you maybe, but not for users/promoters of alternative operating systems.



"The moment 'Designed for Windows 8' hardware hits the shelves, all the other hardware doesn't magically disappear."

The hardware isn't actually "designed for windows 8", that's a marketing slogan. Under the hood the hardware is virtually identical to unlocked devices in all ways except the firmware boot restrictions. In any case your point doesn't contradict mine.


"Generally, I agree. However, if a user wants to be able to try multiple operating systems on the same hardware, then that user should NOT purchase 'Designed for Windows 8' hardware."

Regardless of what users should or should not do, the requirement to buy/carry separate devices at the same time will undeniably give mainstream platforms a huge advantage over independent platforms. Both users and devs who would be willing to participate in early development through the use of dual booting will be put off that they cannot. This barrier will hurt alternative project membership.


"In theory, yes. In practice, no."

Are you saying secure boot will be broken? Or are you saying that manufacturers will not drop support?


"False. Secure boot does in fact protect an operating system. The only debatable aspect is the level of protection it offers. "

As I said, it won't protect operating system level vulnerabilities. The only new piece of protection not previously possible is making sure the bootloader is signed.

"False. Microsoft has not forced anyone into anything. Vendors choose to agree or disagree to Microsoft's licensing. Further, there's no proof anything Microsoft has said was dishonest at the time."

Re-read the article and complain to it's author if you disagree, not me.


"Possibly true but no proof as of yet."

The spec is published, it's not speculation.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Sun 15th Jan 2012 17:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

"Both incorrect and completely irrelevant. Any potential restrictions are imposed by the hardware vendor, not Microsoft."

Please re-read the article then. The restriction is being imposed by microsoft specifically. And secondly, it's an artificial restriction prohibiting software which would otherwise work.

You still don't get it. Vendors have the option to disagree to the terms set forth by Microsoft. No company is forced to create DFW8 systems, they willingly agree to do so, or not do so.

Regarding the "restriction"... Completely irrelevant. If you don't want to use Windows 8, don't buy DFW8 hardware. Are you dumb enough to disagree? It's literally as simple as that, yet you insist on pretending all other options will cease to exist the moment DFW8 stuff hits the shelves.

For you maybe, but not for users/promoters of alternative operating systems.

For me, yes.. And I'm a daily user of both Windows and non-Windows operating systems.

The hardware isn't actually "designed for windows 8", that's a marketing slogan. Under the hood the hardware is virtually identical to unlocked devices in all ways except the firmware boot restrictions. In any case your point doesn't contradict mine.

I haven't seen anyone suggest the hardware is actually different. I don't think anyone is that naive. None-the-less, hardware which is locked to Windows 8 is in fact "Designed for Windows 8". I'm not sure why you're having trouble comprehending such a simple thing.

"Generally, I agree. However, if a user wants to be able to try multiple operating systems on the same hardware, then that user should NOT purchase 'Designed for Windows 8' hardware."

Regardless of what users should or should not do, the requirement to buy/carry separate devices at the same time will undeniably give mainstream platforms a huge advantage over independent platforms.

No such requirement exists. Nobody is being forced to do anything. You need to understand that.

Both users and devs who would be willing to participate in early development through the use of dual booting will be put off that they cannot. This barrier will hurt alternative project membership.

I talk to devs (both by profession and hobbyist) every single day. I have yet to hear a single one of them make the same or even similar comment. This is little more than FUD. You have no tangible or substantial evidence in support of your theory.

Are you saying secure boot will be broken? Or are you saying that manufacturers will not drop support?

I suspect both will become true.

As I said, it won't protect operating system level vulnerabilities. The only new piece of protection not previously possible is making sure the bootloader is signed.

So you agree, secure boot does in fact provide a level of protection.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Alfman on Mon 16th Jan 2012 05:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

ilovebeer,

So, you're counterarguments revolve around the assumption that vendors will refuse to manufacturer win8 devices and/or users will refuse to buy them.

Believe it or not, on this level, I actually agree. The harm caused by locked mainboards is very dependent on the number of locked mainboards which make it to market.

If windows 8 ARM devices are a market flop, then the damage caused by them being locked will be relatively minor. If windows 8 devices dominate the market, then the proliferation of the OS restricted mainboards would be devastating to the cause of open computing.

Now, I know you disagree vehemently with the cause of open computing, however you should still recognize that the above paragraph is true. So, on the assumption that windows 8 will be successful, then we do have cause to be concerned.


Edit: That's without considering any further repercussions of microsoft's restricted boot features having already become part of the UEFI standard.

Edited 2012-01-16 05:54 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Mon 16th Jan 2012 08:13 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

If windows 8 ARM devices are a market flop, then the damage caused by them being locked will be relatively minor. If windows 8 devices dominate the market, then the proliferation of the OS restricted mainboards would be devastating to the cause of open computing.

If that becomes true at some point in the future, it will only affect those who willingly purchase DFW8 systems with the intent of using a non-Windows 8 operating system. My only words for such individuals would be to suggest they do their homework first next time and try to make smarter purchasing decisions that better suit their needs.

Now, I know you disagree vehemently with the cause of open computing, however you should still recognize that the above paragraph is true. So, on the assumption that windows 8 will be successful, then we do have cause to be concerned.

You have no idea what my views on open computing are as I've never discussed it. This is identical to your idea of what my idea of ethics are. Again, a topic I haven't discussed my views on. So far you haven't made a single assumption about my views that is correct. Maybe it's time you stop pretending you know some much about them when in fact you know next to nothing.

Regarding the success of Windows 8... The only people who may have concern are those I described above, and they are in the extreme minority. I've heard your same or similar argument time & time again over the years and one thing has always held true -- the sky has never fallen.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Alfman on Mon 16th Jan 2012 10:05 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

ilovebeer,

"If that becomes true at some point in the future, it will only affect those who willingly purchase DFW8 systems with the intent of using a non-Windows 8 operating system."

This may come as a shock to you, but some windows 8 buyers may actually want to have the choice to dual boot even if they do like windows.

New independent start up projects will particularly suffer since they're functionally incomplete - they require either dual booting, which won't work, or a new dedicated device. How many are going to buy separate dedicated hardware for an alpha OS that isn't ready? The answer is far fewer than those who would volunteer to run it on existing hardware.

Who cares right? I concede, it's not your problem. But it is a problem for open computing and anyone who might benefit from it. What if desktop computers had enforced 3rd party control over OS restrictions, can you honestly say that it would not have impeded the development and growth of alternate operating systems?


"The only people who may have concern are those I described above, and they are in the extreme minority."

Well, I'm happy to end on this note. At least you've finally acknowledged that we have a concern, even though we are in the minority.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by Morgan on Sat 14th Jan 2012 12:25 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Wow, you're all about the "facts", especially considering this is not a material issue yet; it's still words on a page until the devices start coming out.

Anyway, I really think this goes beyond the realm of the end-user's OS preferences. If Microsoft succeeds in this endeavor, it will start a ball rolling all the way down the hill to the motherboard manufacturers, who will have to decide between two distinct product lines: Win8 certified boards for Win8 licensed OEMs, and general purpose boards with normal bootloaders for the build-your-own crowd. The problem with that is we all know which board type will see 90-95% sales. Why spend extra manufacturing time, money, design, development and other resources on a product that essentially appeals to a few OS and hardware geeks?

Not to mention, websites like Newegg.com whose bread and butter is the BYO crowd might just die out completely when the board makers become an OEM only channel. What will Newegg sell then, apart from complete systems and their small line of consumer electronics? Once again, a monopoly potentially harming free trade and the economy. Go figure...

And who is to say it will stop with the bootloader? Perhaps if Microsoft manages to move forward with this bullshit, they will eventually be able to lock out other OSes at the CPU level, with ARM CPUs only able to execute signed code. I hope it won't go that far, but who can say for sure?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by dsmogor on Sat 14th Jan 2012 20:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

The tech have been there for ~6years employed in media devices with strong DRM. It's been there in x86 since (I believe) 2 generations of core cpus in form of TPM.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Sun 15th Jan 2012 18:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Wow, you're all about the "facts", especially considering this is not a material issue yet; it's still words on a page until the devices start coming out.

Funny, I say nearly the same thing. While there are some unknowns, there are however still some existing facts which have been previously pointed out. We are not 100% in the realm of theory and speculation with this issue.

Anyway, I really think this goes beyond the realm of the end-user's OS preferences. If Microsoft succeeds in this endeavor, it will start a ball rolling all the way down the hill to the motherboard manufacturers, who will have to decide between two distinct product lines: Win8 certified boards for Win8 licensed OEMs, and general purpose boards with normal bootloaders for the build-your-own crowd. The problem with that is we all know which board type will see 90-95% sales. Why spend extra manufacturing time, money, design, development and other resources on a product that essentially appeals to a few OS and hardware geeks?

You talk as if Windows 8 is being forcefully crammed down the entire worlds throat. This is simply not true. You're also doing very heavy speculation on sales, manufacturing "expense", and market. This may come as a shock to you but Windows 8 does not completely dominate the market. For that matter, I can't think of a single company I deal with directly, or have heard that intends to deploy it.

Not to mention, websites like Newegg.com whose bread and butter is the BYO crowd might just die out completely when the board makers become an OEM only channel. What will Newegg sell then, apart from complete systems and their small line of consumer electronics? Once again, a monopoly potentially harming free trade and the economy. Go figure...

There isn't a single shred of evidence that board makers will be OEM only. The fact that newegg.com does so well is proof that the BYO crowd is much larger than people here seem willing to admit. It's not just for nerds & geeks. Do you know what newegg.com is taking in? It's a lot more than peanuts.

Windows 8, the newegg.com killer? Don't hold your breath!

And who is to say it will stop with the bootloader? Perhaps if Microsoft manages to move forward with this bullshit, they will eventually be able to lock out other OSes at the CPU level, with ARM CPUs only able to execute signed code. I hope it won't go that far, but who can say for sure?

Speculation doesn't dictate reality. As a matter of fact, the past several years have proven just how unhealthy over-speculating actually is.

Rather than fear every horrible thing my imagination can dream up, I elect to pay attention to what's actually happening while being mindful of past events. The sky is always falling to some people, I'm just not one of them.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by Lennie on Tue 17th Jan 2012 13:57 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Fact: There are several alternatives to buying a "Designed for Windows 8" computer.

Fact: Nobody is forced to buy a "Designed for Windows 8" computer.

Fact: No amount of whining or ignoring will change the above two facts.


That was what we thought to when the Windows based netbooks came out at first, but that didn't last long did it ?

Reply Score: 2

Hipocracy
by SpikeMcG on Sat 14th Jan 2012 07:44 UTC
SpikeMcG
Member since:
2008-02-06

You know all I hear when I read this site is some whiny person complaining about linux not being able to be installed on a Windows PC..

Well it's like the pot calling the kettle here..

I don't hear you folks bemoaning that it's illegal to put any other software on Apple brand hardware than an Apple OS (excepting bootcamp/windows) without Apple's permission. They are even protected by DMCA. Shouldn't when you buy a Windows PC shouldn't it be the same. If you want the hardware ask the manufacturer to sell it to you without Windows or build your own box.. You still have every right to do this..

Don't be a whiner, if this is something that you want ask the hardware folks to sell you a device made just to do that.. Simple answer. Some will even..

Reply Score: 2

RE: Hipocracy
by SpikeMcG on Sat 14th Jan 2012 07:47 UTC in reply to "Hipocracy"
SpikeMcG Member since:
2008-02-06

So my point if you really want your favorite OS on a device, support the device maker that makes that for you and JUST buy this device.. That would even up your marketshare.. Who knows the rest of the world might even stand up and take notice and make it more successful to buy the product..

Android devices technically run on a free OS..

Reply Score: 1

RE: Hipocracy
by Alfman on Sat 14th Jan 2012 08:20 UTC in reply to "Hipocracy"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

SpikeMcG,

"I don't hear you folks bemoaning that it's illegal to put any other software on Apple brand hardware than an Apple OS (excepting bootcamp/windows) without Apple's permission."

That's not really true, apple deserves (and has gotten) criticism over it too. A large percentage of apple devices are jailbroken and beyond that there are hackers porting linux software to istuff. So clearly there is interest in unlocking them too.

http://www.ijailbreak.com/ipad/run-linux-and-android-on-iphone-4-ip...

But to be fair, this article is specifically about microsoft's UEFI restrictions, so it's not ok to just assume everyone here is pro-apple, anti-ms on the matter.

I've been pretty vocal here on this topic, so I'm a bit surprised that your generalization fails to capture me for example. But I am an avid promoter of open computing across the brand spectrum.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Hipocracy
by Morgan on Sat 14th Jan 2012 12:06 UTC in reply to "Hipocracy"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

You're overlooking a huge distinction with your statements about Apple. Regarding general purpose PCs, Apple owns the hardware and the software, so theoretically they could disallow any OS but their own yet they do not restrict ANY other OS. You want Windows on your Mac? Use Apple's Bootcamp software. You want Linux or anything else? Use the freely available ReFit package. Apple won't stop you, they won't sue you, they don't care because you already paid them for that hardware.

On the Windows side of things, Microsoft doesn't own the hardware (again, talking about general purpose x86 and ARM machines) they just own the software. However, they have the near-monopolistic power to force OEMs to disallow any OS but Windows, and they are doing it. The issue is that, if any OEM wants to sell in high volume they must appease Microsoft and actively block any other OS from booting.

I'm not sure where this leaves the build-your-own crowd; will motherboard manufacturers also kowtow to Microsoft's demands, or are they exempt since they don't normally license the OS? Or perhaps there will be a great divide, wherein Windows won't boot at all on a custom built ARM or x86 computer, but rather only on a complete system built by a licensed manufacturer. That would effectively kill the parts market, other than the niche hardware hacker guys.

One last thing: This makes me want many more than just the two Raspberry Pi boards I was planning on getting. I think I'm going to order as many as I can afford in the first batch, and grab as many more as I can in future releases. Because if this goes the way it looks to be going, such boards will be in high demand by those of us who prefer to roll our own systems and use OSes other than Windows. I'm sure many here are in that boat.

Reply Score: 8

Antitrust
by bigdog on Sat 14th Jan 2012 08:20 UTC
bigdog
Member since:
2011-07-06

It is a disaster in the making for Microsoft. Can't wait to see what fine the EU will give to Microsoft:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_competition_c...

This is a typical antitrust case.

Reply Score: 1

Crack the key?
by static666 on Sat 14th Jan 2012 08:21 UTC
static666
Member since:
2006-06-09

Could a massive distributed network be set up to crack the root key used to sign all the bootloaders? Why don't we put distributed.net to do something useful? Would it be feasible if enough people care and do run the software for some time?

Reply Score: 1

Anti innovation
by theninth on Sat 14th Jan 2012 09:04 UTC
theninth
Member since:
2009-08-20

I think you could even argue that this is anti innovation (and maybe it's been argued before). A majority of the smart phones are built on top of free software (IOS, Android). Alot of other electronic gadgets too. GNU/Linux and BSD is very solid OS:es today, and even if alot of contribution was made by companies, they would not have gained to traction if there were'nt because people could install it and play with it on there home computers. And in fact, Linus would never been able to start writting Linux if it were'nt for an open platform at home.

EDIT: I had only read a little bit less then half of the comments when posting this (shame on me!) Well what I said is implied in some of the later comments but I don't think it stated straight forward. But maybe that is because it's so obvious ;)

Edited 2012-01-14 09:18 UTC

Reply Score: 2

antitrust again
by bigdog on Sat 14th Jan 2012 15:19 UTC
bigdog
Member since:
2011-07-06

Hold your horses, guys. Remember the case in the EU where Microsoft was punished by the EU for not offering consumers the choice of different browsers:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/business/global/17msft.html?pagew...

If Microsoft goes ahead with this, it won't cost them just 1.67 billion. It will cost them more.

Take it from a lawyer.

Reply Score: 2

RE: antitrust again
by Lennie on Tue 17th Jan 2012 13:54 UTC in reply to "antitrust again"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

That is really nice and all, but it will take the EU years. Which is the same is something like dogyears/humanyears, but for ICT.

Because by the time they get it done in court every general computing device will be dead and the general public won't have any idea how to use a normal computer anymore.

So that is also why we can not rely on the EU and lawyers to fix this problem.

Reply Score: 2

I like Ipad2
by twitterfire on Sun 15th Jan 2012 01:12 UTC
twitterfire
Member since:
2008-09-11

I like Ipad2, and I like the fact that I can't ever install any alternative operating system on iPAD. Apple says that I don't need any other operating system on my iPad 2. I trust Apple, and I know I have the best experience with iOS on my iPad, so why try to install Linux or BSD?

I know that evil Microsoft will force OEMs to only boot windows 8 on tablets, but I don't care: at that time I will have iPad 3, it doesn;t matter that I will score some another 800 $ cash. After all, I am an american idiot. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: I like Ipad2
by l3v1 on Sun 15th Jan 2012 10:43 UTC in reply to "I like Ipad2"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

I like Ipad2, and I like the fact that I can't ever install any alternative operating system on iPAD


Good for you. Nothing wrong with that, you're the exact representative of the Apple target demography. But, sure you must know there are a whole lot more of other people that don't belong to that camp.

Reply Score: 4

twitterfire
Member since:
2008-09-11

Apple released an ARM tablet running iOS and nobody said anything.

Samsung/Google released an ARM tablet running Android and nobody said a thing.

HP released a tablet running WebOS and Blacberry released the playbook running a proprietary system.

Can we blame Microsoft if they will lock some tablets running Windows 8?

Reply Score: 1

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

twitterfire,

"Apple released an ARM tablet running iOS and nobody said anything."

"Samsung/Google released an ARM tablet running Android and nobody said a thing."

"HP released a tablet running WebOS and Blacberry released the playbook running a proprietary system."

Do you know whether the operating systems are actually locked by the mainboard of any of these devices? I honestly don't know the answer, and welcome any sources you have. But due to the fact that linux can run on each of those, I suspect there are no mainboard OS restrictions in place on them.

However difficult the factory OS might make it to touch the bootloader on these, in principal the hardware will still boot alternate operating systems. Meanwhile the ARM mainboards implementing Microsoft's mandated secure boot feature will not.

I agree there should have been more media coverage on the vendor lock aspects of all the earlier guys - even more than you mentioned. They're all following a rather terrible precedent mostly set by apple, and it's extremely worrisome to the future of open computing.

"Can we blame Microsoft if they will lock some tablets running Windows 8?"

I think so, they all deserve blame. I do understand their motivation for doing it, but I also think future consumers will suffer as a result. That's why we need to spread the word about it.

Edited 2012-01-15 04:14 UTC

Reply Score: 4

l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

Can we blame Microsoft if they will lock some tablets running Windows 8?


We sure can when that locking is that broad as to prohibit installing anything else on those arm devices (and we're not just talking "some tablets" here).

Reply Score: 3

This has a silver lining to it...
by PhilPotter on Sun 15th Jan 2012 01:40 UTC
PhilPotter
Member since:
2011-06-10

Bad news I agree, as I want control of my device regardless of cpu architecture, but one thing that perked me up:

These new certification requirements show that MS is now MANDATING that secure boot must be able to be disabled by the user on the x86 platform - they weren't doing this before. It is important because it means - regardless of if Windows 8 will boot with it switched off - that any OEM PC will now definitely be able to boot Linux/*BSD as opposed to the 'maybe' situation we had before.

We still need to kick up a stink about this ARM nonsense, but at least the x86 platform will definitely remain open now.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Sun 15th Jan 2012 04:09 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

What hypocrites. They don't even pretend to be decent, after they wrote that they value users' choice and so on in response to Matthew Garrett's analysis. The bottom line - never trust the dark empire.

Reply Score: 4

told you so
by l3v1 on Sun 15th Jan 2012 10:39 UTC
l3v1
Member since:
2005-07-06

I, for one, I'm extremely tired of all the disregarded "told-you-so"s in relation with Microsoft actions.

People of the bfc (blind fanboy club) should just read up again on all forecasts from the past few years regarding lock-down of the PC as a platform, at least from these forums. And think again.

We still can get to a future where Russia and China will flood the market with PCs of their own design.

Reply Score: 5

matthewp131
Member since:
2011-09-21

I just lost all excitement for Windows 8. We need to get a Reddit protest started on this, it can work. Just look at how much they have helped combat SOPA/PIPA. Secure Boot/UEFI is just as big an issue for computing.

Reply Score: 3

Back to the Courtroom
by Lorin on Mon 16th Jan 2012 02:56 UTC
Lorin
Member since:
2010-04-06

Microsoft will be back in the Courtroom for yet another round of anti-competitive suits, California, true to form will be leading the way.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by AcacioMartins
by AcacioMartins on Mon 16th Jan 2012 11:22 UTC
AcacioMartins
Member since:
2011-04-06

A lot of people are comparing this move to what apple does without realizing a major difference, apple is selling you hardware, if it wants to sell locked down hardware that's a dickish move, but fine. If microsoft wants to manufacture hardware and to sell it locked down that's a dickish move, but fine.

What isn't fine, is a software monopoly dictating to hardware manufacturers that they have to sell their products locked down.

Btw, I wonder how long until the EU announces an investigation into this.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by AcacioMartins
by shmerl on Tue 17th Jan 2012 16:13 UTC in reply to "Comment by AcacioMartins"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

EU didn't bother much with Windows bundling which is still rampant everywhere:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_refund

So I wouldn't bet on it as a rule.

Reply Score: 2

meh...
by XenonXZ on Mon 16th Jan 2012 12:38 UTC
XenonXZ
Member since:
2011-05-25

Who cares...?

Reply Score: 1

For 20 years you have complained
by jefro on Mon 16th Jan 2012 17:24 UTC
jefro
Member since:
2007-04-13

For 20 years you have complained that MS is vulnerable to hackers. Now they attempt to fix it the way it should have been and you again complain.

Get a life you losers. Most of the world needs systems to work. There will still be ways to load your OS. You didn't mind when Apple did this same thing.

Reply Score: 0

JPollard Member since:
2011-12-31

This doesn't fix anything.

Windows will still get thousands of viruses.

It might make a root sector virus a bit harder... but not that much (hack the disk relocation index instead - when checked - it will validate, when used it provides a different sector).

Or put in a hardware trap - after the sector is read/validated, but before it starts execution hang the CPU, and replace the boot sector.

Yes both call for cracking some hardware... but both are done during hardware debugging.

And vulnerabilities in the USB controllers have already shown that they can be used to access main memory bypassing all security controls.

Reply Score: 2

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

This is specifically about not allowing people who know what they are doing to disable that system if they need to do so/want to do so.

This isn't about security, here is an example:

You can't even boot from a Linux USB Stick to scan for virusses on the main HDD/SDD.

Reply Score: 2