OSNews

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.

That's a very common misconception. Too bad it's not supported by law. Not in the US anyways.

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.


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?

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.

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.

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.

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.