Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 21st Sep 2011 22:06 UTC, submitted by kragil
Windows After the walled garden coming to the desktop operating system world, we're currently witnessing another potential nail in the coffin of the relatively open world of desktop and laptop computing. Microsoft has revealed [.pptx] that as part of its Windows 8 logo program, OEMs must implement UEFI secure boot. This could potentially complicate the installation of other operating systems, like Windows 7, XP, and Linux.
Thread beginning with comment 490277
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by ronaldst
by ronaldst on Wed 21st Sep 2011 23:03 UTC
ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29

"I have a hard time believing the combined power of Apple and Microsoft - both strong supporters of these kinds of anti-user features"

Can't tell if trolling... Anti-user? That doesn't even compute.

Reply Score: -1

RE: Comment by ronaldst
by lemur2 on Wed 21st Sep 2011 23:33 in reply to "Comment by ronaldst"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"I have a hard time believing the combined power of Apple and Microsoft - both strong supporters of these kinds of anti-user features" Can't tell if trolling... Anti-user? That doesn't even compute.


"Anti-user" is any feature that is part of a product that is there only because it benefits the vendor, not the user.

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

"In economics, a damaged good (sometimes termed "crippleware" or product with "anti-features") is a good that has been deliberately limited in performance, quality or utility, typically for marketing reasons as part of a strategy of product differentiation."

Microsoft's "Geuniune Advantage" euphamism is an absolute classic example. This did absolutely nothing for users except lock some of them out and require some people to purchase new copies of software they had already bought.

Here is another example of a different flavour:
http://www.osnews.com/comments/25175

Microsoft's "Windows 7 Starter" is a similar (although not as drastic) example where Microsoft take a reasonable OS and then go out of their way to cripple it. It actually costs Microsoft more to produce such a version which has the express aim to give users less functionality.

Anti-user. QED.

Edited 2011-09-21 23:39 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 12

RE[2]: Comment by ronaldst
by Brendan on Thu 22nd Sep 2011 02:29 in reply to "RE: Comment by ronaldst"
Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

Anti-user. QED.


Whether or not it's anti-user depends on who has the keys.

If the owner of the computer (e.g. the end-user) has full control over which keys are installed, then it's a "pro-user" feature as it allows them to run any OS they like while also making it hard for things like boot-time rootkits and viruses; and may possibly even help to prevent theft (e.g. if your laptop gets stolen, then maybe nobody will be able to access your data without your password; even if they attempt to replace the OS). This is the best case scenario - a scenario where (for e.g.) Linux could also use secure boot to benefit the end user.

If the owner of the computer (e.g. the end-user) doesn't have any control over which OSs are allowed and which aren't, then it's anti-user (and I'll be boycotting and recommending everyone else does too).

It's worth pointing out that "UEFI Secure Boot" could be used either way - to benefit the owner/user, or in spite of the owner/user. I'm hoping it will be used in a good way (e.g. to avoid the need for a layer of "DeepSAFE" McAfee bloat) and not in a bad way.

- Brendan

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE: Comment by ronaldst
by Tony Swash on Thu 22nd Sep 2011 10:30 in reply to "Comment by ronaldst"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

"I have a hard time believing the combined power of Apple and Microsoft - both strong supporters of these kinds of anti-user features"

Can't tell if trolling... Anti-user? That doesn't even compute.


I think what is meant is 'anti-a users just like me'.

I don't know much or care much about UEFI secure boot in Windows 8 and clearly it's possible to facilitate the installation of alternative operating systems via UEFI as Apple did with the Mac but 'anti-user'?

It's worth remembering that 99% of users want stuff that works out of the box, they don't want to be system integrators, they don't want to tinker, they don't want to figure out how everything works. They just want computers that work, that don't fuck up and that let them get on and do stuff.

It's like cars. Most normal people want cars so they can drive about and do stuff, stuff not to do with cars but normal stuff. A very small minority of people actually like to tinker with cars, they don't want cars just to drive about, they want to play around with their inner workings. So if a car company came out with a new car and said 'our new design is proved to be 10 times more reliable than current car designs but it involves sealing the engine compartment so you cannot get at the engine with seeing a professional mechanic' consumers would lap it up. And they would be right to lap it up as it would meet their needs better.

Consumers that want computers and devices to just work and don't want to tinker with them are not stupid, they are clever. They are clever because they have correctly identified their needs and correctly identified what they are not interested in. Who needs to know how a phone works to want to gossip on the phone or make the next world changing deal on a phone? The requirement to know how a technology works in order to use it is a sign of an immature technology. Progress means taking away that work overhead so you can use technology to just do all the other stuff that makes up human culture.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by ronaldst
by Alfman on Thu 22nd Sep 2011 10:39 in reply to "RE: Comment by ronaldst"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Tony Swash,

"I don't know much or care much about UEFI secure boot in Windows 8 and clearly it's possible to facilitate the installation of alternative operating systems via UEFI as Apple did with the Mac but 'anti-user'?

It's worth remembering that 99% of users want stuff that works out of the box, they don't want to be system integrators..."

I think we all get this. But the question is why was it engineered to take power away from the owners? This is not a necessary element of secure boot. Even if 99% of users never need to touch it, why prohibit them from doing so if they want to use it with their own code? That's the problem that we/I have.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by ronaldst
by JAlexoid on Thu 22nd Sep 2011 11:45 in reply to "RE: Comment by ronaldst"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

It's like cars. Most normal people want cars so they can drive about and do stuff, stuff not to do with cars but normal stuff. A very small minority of people actually like to tinker with cars, they don't want cars just to drive about, they want to play around with their inner workings. So if a car company came out with a new car and said 'our new design is proved to be 10 times more reliable than current car designs but it involves sealing the engine compartment so you cannot get at the engine with seeing a professional mechanic' consumers would lap it up. And they would be right to lap it up as it would meet their needs better.


Consumers actually tend to stay further away from cars that can't be serviced at a low enough cost after their warranty expires. And the majority of the world's population does not drive a new car(3 or less y/o).
People are very well aware of maintenance issues...

If the car manufacturer came out and said: "We will not allow access to the engine, but you get a 20 year warranty on the car"; then consumers would snatch it.

Computer maintenance is less of a normal thing, like changing worn out belts in a car, but still...

Reply Parent Score: 5