The Right to Dual-boot: Linux Groups Plead Case
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.
E-mail Print r 11   40 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/ji3
Thread beginning with comment 495023
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Them are fighting words...
by Soulbender on Mon 31st Oct 2011 15:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Them are fighting words..."
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

but they don't require secure boot to be enabled by default.


Actually, that's exactly what they do require if the vendor wants to have the "Designed for Windows 8" logo.
This anti-competitive practice isn't going to sit well in many parts of the world though.

Reply Parent Score: 15

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

It's not anti-competitive if you can turn it off. THe demo that they showed had an option to turn it off in the "BIOS", so what's the problem. It's no different than buying any other pc with Windows if it can be turned off.

Though it makes for some great FUD.

Reply Parent Score: 1

bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

But they are making it a PITA AND MS is requiring a very questionable feature to be implemented for certification. it's up to the board manufacturers to go out of their way to implement an "off switch" and then there's the whole issue that the board manufacturers don't have to implement the off switch.

So how is a purchaser supposed to know if they board they want to purchase has the forced feature disabled or not? Is it required as part of the packaging? Or someone is just "supposed to know" what they are getting supports the "off switch"?

What if someone just buys a system without knowing any better and later they want to play with other OS's and then find out the board doesn't support the off switch? Are they just SOL ?

Edited 2011-10-31 15:58 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 12

Read more of this thread... >
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

It's not anti-competitive if you can turn it off.


It is still hindering the competition so yes, it is. Perhaps not as blatantly so as requiring that it should not be possible to disable secure boot but anti-competitive nonetheless.

THe demo that they showed had an option to turn it off in the "BIOS", so what's the problem.


There's a problem if there is no option to turn it off. Considering all the nasty clauses MS has tried to put in their OEM contracts over the years it's not impossible that such a clause would appear at some point in time.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Read more of this thread... >
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

It's not anti-competitive if you can turn it off. THe demo that they showed had an option to turn it off in the "BIOS", so what's the problem. It's no different than buying any other pc with Windows if it can be turned off.

Though it makes for some great FUD.


I find it rather disappointing that people are modding down comments like yours -- which are actually pretty informative -- because they don't like UEFI. The issue of preventing OEMs from creating dual-boot machines has been litigated by the USDOJ already, and Microsoft is under a consent decree monitored by government lawyers for all new Windows features.

The point that I think people are missing is that Microsoft isn't telling OEMs that they must turn UEFI ON by default to get a logo sticker. They aren't allowed to do that. What they are saying is that an OEM *must* implement UEFI functionality -- even if they ultimately decide to turn it OFF by default and/or make it BIOS-selectable.

Reply Parent Score: 2