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 490342
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by ronaldst
by Tony Swash on Thu 22nd Sep 2011 10:30 UTC 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[3]: Comment by ronaldst
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 22nd Sep 2011 11:12 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ronaldst"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

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.


The problem is that Apple fanatics tend to be blind to issues beyond the needs of Apple users. The kind of control we hand over to private entities we have ZERO control over, entities which have very close ties to what I consider to be an immoral, inhumane, and barbaric regime (the US one, no matter the party or president in power) is something I do not find particularly comforting.

Not that it WILL affect me in any way, but the POSSIBILITY should make any true democrat [the ideology, not the party] nervous.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by ronaldst
by Tony Swash on Thu 22nd Sep 2011 18:44 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ronaldst"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

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.



Personally I think it's because Microsoft has always had a monopolistic business model, since they achieved a monopoly position in relation to Windows and Office everything they have done has been about defending and extending that monopoly. It's what has made them so bad at innovating. Microsoft knows, deep down inside, that if it's core products had to compete on a level playing field against just as viable alternatives that they would fail.

Reply Parent Score: 1

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

RE[3]: Comment by ronaldst
by jack_perry on Thu 22nd Sep 2011 15:44 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ronaldst"
jack_perry Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually, we have the situation he describes now: manufacturers have for more than a decade now been manufacturing cars where it is very hard, if not impossible, for an ordinary consumer to change the oil: the filter is out of reach; "protective covers" have been screwed onto the bottoms of cars, etc. And never mind the use of computers within cars, that make it impossible to hand-tune the way people used to.

Yet people don't avoid these cars: they buy them, then take them to mechanics, and pay the fees gladly, in no small part because they're more reliable: today's cars last a *lot* longer than cars of a half-century ago. Whether they're more reliable because it's impossible for Jim Bob to change his own oil is not clear to me, but they guy has a point.

Reply Parent Score: 2