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.
Thread beginning with comment 495025
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

How is it a PITA? Going into the BIOS and turning it off is a pain in the ass? How lazy are you?

If a manufacturer can't read the specs of a particular MB, then they just suck, and should go out of business. If an enthusiast can't? Then they really suck.

This has as much meaning as the Processor IDs that Intel introduced with the P3, which is absolutely none. If you can't turn it off on a particular MB, then don't buy it. If you can't turn it off on a particular OEM computer, then don't buy it.

Vote with your dollars, and don't fall for the FUD.

Edited 2011-10-31 21:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

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"?


Since there are motherboard manufacturers who cater to hardcore gamers that like to run multiple video cards and overclock their CPUs, I'm pretty sure that a few of them will make boards with this option turned off, and will advertise that fact. Afterall, I'd like to think there are at least as many Linux users out there as hardcore gamers.

Sure, this may prevent major OEMs from offering 'Windows 8 certified' machines that can run Linux, but let's be realistic... if desktop Linux hasn't yet caught on to the point where major OEMs want to pimp it, it probably never will. It's always going to be an OS primarily used by geeks.

Reply Parent Score: 1

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

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

By your logic, having to press F12 on my keyboard to choose another boot device is that a hinderence to installing another OS?

Reply Parent Score: 2

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