Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 31st Oct 2011 12:25 UTC
Linux "Red Hat, Canonical and the Linux Foundation have laid out a set of recommendations for hardware vendors in hopes of preserving the ability to install Linux on Windows 8 machines. Windows 8 machines should ship in a setup mode giving users more control right off the bat, the groups argue." Group hug-cheer combo for Red Hat, Canonical, and the Linux Foundation please.
Permalink for comment 495489
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Alfman on Thu 3rd Nov 2011 08:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Member since:


"You're wrong. Vendors are certainly within their rights to place restrictions on how their hardware functions. Further, they are protected by law against those who misuse the hardware. "

Come again? Once I *own* the computer, it's mine to do with as I please.

"I tend to agree with that idea. However, it's not applicable..."

However nothing... I was countering your claim that we are childish over the idea of loosing rights.

"Here's the thing about criticism... For it to be anything more than hot air, it has to be justifiable."

Yes, and it turns out that microsoft plays a large hand in whether we'll be able to dual boot or not. I'll not repeat myself again though.

"That's even worse."

It sure is worse for microsoft's image, I'll give you that. But as an analogy it's more accurate because your car is rejecting unleaded fuel which would otherwise be compatible. Anyways, analogies are a waste of time, I was just correcting yours.

"People who may eventually want to try an alternate OS should take that into consideration before buying a system. The fact still remains that you know what you are buying. If you don't like it, don't buy it."

Sure you can blame the customer. However this argument hardly seems sincere; What reason do consumers have to suspect that their new computers will have microsoft security keys hard coded into them that they can't change? Most linux newbies don't start with a dedicated system, I didn't. I didn't even buy my own machines until I was older. 15 years ago I had a pet OS of my own when I was still a windows guy. But of course none of this matters in your crusade against linux. You may not admit it, but if the situation were reversed, it seems to me that you'd be crying fowl too.

"I have no problem with users being able to choose which OS they want to use."

...but you'll defend a feature which hard codes microsoft keys and doesn't allow users to change them...yea right, that lie is as clear as day. If you truly didn't mind what OS users chose, then you would agree with me that the spec fails to accommodate secure booting of alternate operating systems, and places dual booting at risk (depending on microsoft's actions).

"It should be pointed out, again, that there isn't a single shred of evidence that says users who do purchase 'Designed for Windows 8' systems won't be able to install an alternate OS"

Please do all of us a favor and read the arguments again. What is your problem, if any, with the recommendations given by the linux foundation? They put all operating systems on an equal footing, without giving microsoft a hard coded security advantage.

Reply Parent Score: 3