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 495478
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Thu 3rd Nov 2011 07:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

The law doesn't take any sides at all since this is all very new. Manufacturers don't have a right to prohibit dual boot either, see what I did there?
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.

The public looses out when a once open ecosystem becomes closed and locked, do you deny this?
I tend to agree with that idea. However, it's not applicable as a users ability to purchase a system with a pre-installed OS other than Windows, barebones with no OS installed, or the ability to build their own system is still perfectly intact.

Everyone involved deserves criticism *including* microsoft!
Here's the thing about criticism... For it to be anything more than hot air, it has to be justifiable. Whining about _only_ the _possibility_ that a user may not be able to use an OS other than Windows 8, on a pre-build system "Designed for Windows 8", is certainly not justification. I have little sympathy for people who buy a product and then cry foul play when they try to use the product in a way other than intended and it doesn't work.

If you don't want to use Windows 8, don't be an idiot and buy a system designed to run only Windows 8.

Boy your right, it's a terrible analogy. A more accurate one would be an unleaded car that only excepts EXON fuel and will not run with other unleaded fuels.
That's even worse.

Many families will buy "designed for win8" computers and intend to use mostly windows. But some of them may eventually want to try out linux too (maybe they have children who are interested in learning it). Or they might want to re-purpose an old computer. The reason most of us linux guys are balking at 3rd party controls is because reusing a windows machine is precisely how most of us learned linux in the first place. We don't all have the cash to buy a dedicated machine to try an OS we've never used before, particularly as kids. One of the great benefits of linux is being able to try it out along side windows.
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.

Unless you are bothered that linux is taking away windows market share in this way, I doubt you have a good reason to argue against having OS choice in the hands of the owners.
I have no problem with users being able to choose which OS they want to use. But, that is not a right, and if the user wants choice then the user needs to consider that when purchasing hardware. If the user makes poor purchasing decisions, well, maybe they'll be smarter about it next time.

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. If that ever does become a reality then again, if you don't want to be limited to Windows 8 but yet buy hardware that limits you to Windows 8, then you have nobody to blame but yourself.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Alfman on Thu 3rd Nov 2011 08:31 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

ilovebeer,

"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

RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Thu 3rd Nov 2011 16:09 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Come again? Once I *own* the computer, it's mine to do with as I please.
That's a very common misconception. Too bad it's not supported by law. Not in the US anyways.

However nothing... I was countering your claim that we are childish over the idea of loosing rights.
You can not lose rights you never had to begin with. Sooner or later you'll have to accept that there's a big difference between rights you think or assume you have, and ones you actually do. I'll repeat it again.... You can not lose rights you never had to begin with.

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.

Only in terms of pre-built systems that are "Designed for Windows 8". We just went down this road, have you already forgotten users have several other options on the table if they don't like what buying a pre-built "Designed for Windows 8" _could_ get them?

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 users who buy a Windows system intend to use Windows. And yes, the customer is exactly who is to blame if they've purchased hardware that doesn't suit their needs. It certain isn't the vendor or Microsofts fault they made a poor purchasing decision.

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.
So you are whining about "Designed for Windows 8" system users potentially not being able to use those systems to turn into Linux newbies.. And you don't see any childishness in that. Funny.

By the way, you are, of course, wrong that I would be crying foul were the roles reversed. My statements, comments, and opinions would be identical. What you fail to realize is that I couldn't care less what role each OS plays. It's the users responsibility to buy a system that suits their needs.

As far as this imaginary "crusade against linux" you claim I have. I guess you've missed previous posts where I've said very clearly I use both just about equally. In addition I've also said both are great in some areas, both are shit in some areas, and neither beats out the other hands down in everything.

...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).
I'm stating my opinions and certainly have neither reason, nor the immaturity to lie about it. You on the other hand seem to have no problem coming up with false claims, imaginary rights, and assumptions that have absolutely nothing to support them.

Now.. As I said, I have no problem with a user choosing which OS to use. They should thinking about their needs and pick whichever OS best suits them. But, their personal responsibility doesn't stop there. They should also pick hardware that suits those needs as well. Ignore it all you want but it remain true regardless.

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.
Microsoft is within its legal rights to establish terms and conditions to protect their products. Vendors can elect to consent or not. And users have several other options available to them in the event that purchasing a "Designed for Windows 8" system doesn't suit their needs. The linux foundation isn't doing anything other than asking for a favor -- that these companies willingly act in favor of linux interests rather than their own.

Unlike others, I am not being brainwashed to think the sky is falling. I haven't lost sight of the fact that absolutely no choice has been taken away from the user. I'm not fooled into panic and fear.

Feel free to entertain us by arguing against the fact that people may still buy systems with other OS'es installed on them, buy barebones systems with no OS installed, or build their own custom system.

Reply Parent Score: 1