Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 16th Aug 2013 16:10 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y

In the past two months, Microsoft and Google have been bickering over one central issue: HTML5. The Verge has learned that Google is forcing Microsoft to build its YouTube Windows Phone app in HTML5, despite its own Android and iOS versions using superior native code. Although Microsoft has offered to build ad support along with making other tweaks as Google has requested, a full HTML5 app isn't currently possible on the platform.

The difficult thing here is that Google actually has a very good case; it's their API, their service, their rules. On top of that, YouTube publishers - big and small - need to earn money from advertisements too, and incorrect implementations make that harder. Microsoft's mafia practices regarding patents, extorting companies to pay for Android use even though Microsoft has contributed zero code to Android plays a role too. Lastly, Windows Phone is essentially irrelevant with 3% market share - it's not as if Microsoft ever concerned itself with minority platforms.

Still, all this does is hurt consumers, no matter how few Windows Phone users there are. Just work this out, please, you bunch of children.

Thread beginning with comment 569794
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Thank you Microsoft
by Alfman on Fri 16th Aug 2013 17:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Thank you Microsoft"
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

jgagnon,

Ok, can I understand that. But what about the reverse? Do any linux distros allow themselves to automatically install themselves as subordinate to the NT bootloader? There are no official standards with regards to BIOS bootloaders and if we're talking defacto standards then arguably linux should be doing more to work under NT's bootloader.

I agree they all should work better, but the chainloading mess seems to be mostly caused by lacking multiboot standardization in BIOS rather than a problem directly caused by MS. This has been addressed in EFI, the following link may be of interest.

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Int...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Thank you Microsoft
by voidlogic on Fri 16th Aug 2013 17:51 in reply to "RE[3]: Thank you Microsoft"
voidlogic Member since:
2005-09-03

>Do any linux distros allow themselves to automatically install themselves as subordinate to the NT bootloader?

Perhaps not, BUT this will automatically create an entry for the previous Windows install in their bootloader, making the distinction a non-issue.

Reply Parent Score: 10

RE[4]: Thank you Microsoft
by WereCatf on Fri 16th Aug 2013 17:52 in reply to "RE[3]: Thank you Microsoft"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Ok, can I understand that. But what about the reverse? Do any linux distros allow themselves to automatically install themselves as subordinate to the NT bootloader?


Well, Linux-distros generally install GRUB, ie. they, too, overwrite MBR. There's a difference, however, as Linux-distros try very hard to install a GRUB-entry for any other OSes that are installed, too, like e.g. when I install Ubuntu on a machine that's already got Windows installed there appears a boot-menu entry for Windows along with Ubuntu.

Edited 2013-08-16 17:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[5]: Thank you Microsoft
by Alfman on Fri 16th Aug 2013 18:12 in reply to "RE[4]: Thank you Microsoft"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

WereCatf,

"Well, Linux-distros generally install GRUB, ie. they, too, overwrite MBR. There's a difference, however, as Linux-distros try very hard to install a GRUB-entry for any other OSes that are installed, too, like e.g. when I install Ubuntu on a machine that's already got Windows installed there appears a boot-menu entry for Windows along with Ubuntu."

I seem to recall windows doing the same thing with XP (adding an entry for "previous operating system"), am I wrong? I don't know about win7. Knowing Microsoft it might work differently between various "editions", ugh.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Thank you Microsoft
by moondevil on Fri 16th Aug 2013 18:14 in reply to "RE[4]: Thank you Microsoft"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

I once killed the harddisk on my work laptop, when a Linux live distribution destroyed the MBR with a Grub installation, thus killing the McAfee secure bootloader for the encrypted harddisk.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I've certainly installed Linux without touching the MBR. How easy that is to do depends on the distro. I'm not familiar with Ubuntu's installation, but with RHEL/Fedora/SUSE/Debian/Gentoo I've never had an issue. Of course, it makes no sense to not overwrite the MBR if windows is already on there as windows boot loader hasn't had the ability to boot anything else.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[5]: Thank you Microsoft
by Morgan on Sun 18th Aug 2013 16:30 in reply to "RE[4]: Thank you Microsoft"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Slackware goes one better: It gives you the choice of where to put the boot loader or to not install one at all. Of course those choices imply that the user has the knowledge necessary to be able to boot Slackware with the alternative setup, but I still find it quite nice of them to allow so many choices.

I actually prefer LILO to GRUB too; it's supposedly less flexible but it's certainly simpler to use.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[4]: Thank you Microsoft
by jgagnon on Fri 16th Aug 2013 19:12 in reply to "RE[3]: Thank you Microsoft"
jgagnon Member since:
2008-06-24

Ok, can I understand that. But what about the reverse? Do any linux distros allow themselves to automatically install themselves as subordinate to the NT bootloader? There are no official standards with regards to BIOS bootloaders and if we're talking defacto standards then arguably linux should be doing more to work under NT's bootloader.


Grub may have had more than a few issues over the years, but I've yet to have one Linux distribution fail to recognize another Linux installation when setting up dual boot. However, I've had MANY times where Vista/7 have stomped all over other Windows installations on the same system.

My worst nightmare over several days (because I was too stubborn to give up): setting up a system with XP, Vista, Windows 7, and Linux... each on separate hard drives. I don't remember which distribution of Linux it was, but most likely Ubuntu (I'm mostly a Debian guy now with some Mint thrown in).

XP stomps all over everything unless it is first in line in the install order. I could not get XP to do anything other than destroy any previous bootloader.

Vista will recognize a previous XP install some of the time but never anything else. About half the time I had XP and Vista ready to boot after Vista was installed, but the other half left me with either an unbootable system or just Vista. Sometimes I had the boot menu listing both XP and Vista but only the Vista option would boot. It was the randomness that pissed me off more than anything.

Windows 7 seems to be able to recognize XP being on there but has major issues if both XP and Vista are already installed on the same box. In fact, I was unable to find any way to have Windows 7 and Vista peacefully coexist on the same computer without chaining the bootloaders. So it would first boot to a menu listing Windows 7 and the "previous OS". Choosing previous OS would then list XP and Vista in a menu, with no way to go back. Windows 7 would not install into Vista's already installed boot menu.

Linux, however, had no issues getting in the mix and setting up Grub accordingly. XP/Vista were not on the main menu because they were hidden behind the 7 bootloader.

The final install order for occasional success was XP first, then Vista, then 7, then Linux. Any other order left at least one OS unbootable.

EDIT: Fixed some poor memory issues.

EDIT: Ok, they may not be fixed... I'm having trouble remember exactly how the boot menus were after it was all installed. It was years ago, sorry for any mistakes.

Edited 2013-08-16 19:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: Thank you Microsoft
by Hiev on Fri 16th Aug 2013 19:29 in reply to "RE[4]: Thank you Microsoft"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Let's not forget that Windows cant read ext2, ext3 or ext4 partitions but Linux can read NTFS, but this is actually a Windows lost not Linux lost.

Edited 2013-08-16 19:29 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: Thank you Microsoft
by lucas_maximus on Sat 17th Aug 2013 11:01 in reply to "RE[4]: Thank you Microsoft"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Older versions of Windows normally can't detect newer versions. It is a bit shit.

I suggest you check out this. If you install grub to it own partition you can easily manage booting everything from different Windows Versions, Linux, OpenBSD etc.

http://gag.sourceforge.net/

Can be run from CD or Floppy (if anyone used them still).

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: Thank you Microsoft
by Morgan on Sun 18th Aug 2013 19:43 in reply to "RE[4]: Thank you Microsoft"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

If you had each OS on its own hard drive, it would be trivial to set it up and have it working flawlessly. Simply unplug all but the hard drive you're currently installing. For example, when installing XP, unplug the Linux, Vista, and 7 drives. Ditto for each installation. Then, tell the BIOS to boot the Linux drive by default. Set up GRUB on the Linux drive to point to each of the three Windows OSes and you're set.

I've done something very similar in the past, with Slackware Linux, Arch Linux, Windows XP, and Windows 7 each on its own drive, and that's how I set it up. Arch's GRUB provided boot entries for each one with just a few minutes of setting up custom entries.

Edited 2013-08-18 19:45 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Thank you Microsoft
by judgen on Fri 16th Aug 2013 21:31 in reply to "RE[3]: Thank you Microsoft"
judgen Member since:
2006-07-12

Debian defaul installer: Last section of the install;
Would you like to install grub(2)?
You could pick no if you want to, and debian does not force the rewrite of the MBR, and THATS the difference.

The reason debian can not load itself from the NTLDR is due to the fact that it is illegal (in the US atleast) to touch the windows partition (as EULA's has legal standing here unlike the rest of the world, except canada and some parts of the pacific and carribiean) that way and install teh chainloader, so you would have to install it manually. But they make it rather easy to do it yourself with a pre bundled package but also by direct binary download from the debian site.

I bet it is as easy for most distros.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Thank you Microsoft
by lemur2 on Sat 17th Aug 2013 08:53 in reply to "RE[3]: Thank you Microsoft"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Ok, can I understand that. But what about the reverse? Do any linux distros allow themselves to automatically install themselves as subordinate to the NT bootloader?


I would think that the NT bootloader simply doesn't allow for multi-booting of different OSes.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Thank you Microsoft
by Kochise on Sat 17th Aug 2013 09:50 in reply to "RE[4]: Thank you Microsoft"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Nope, it is possible, from the NTLOADER of my Windows XP SP3 partition, I can boot the following :

Windows XP SP3
Windows 2000 SP4
QNX 6.5.0
Fedora 13
Ubuntu 10.04

It is a bit tricky though :

http://forums.justlinux.com/showthread.php?54037-Trouble-with-NTLDR.....

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/51016-multi-boot-with-ntldr/

http://www.winimage.com/bootpart.htm

Kochise

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: Thank you Microsoft
by Soulbender on Sat 17th Aug 2013 10:25 in reply to "RE[4]: Thank you Microsoft"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I would think that the NT bootloader simply doesn't allow for multi-booting of different OSes.


It does. It's not exactly smooth but it does support booting other OS's.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Thank you Microsoft
by ishtar on Mon 19th Aug 2013 21:29 in reply to "RE[3]: Thank you Microsoft"
ishtar Member since:
2013-07-30

There's a difference between wiping the MBR clean to make sure you are the only usable OS on the system, and automagically installing into an existing MBR.

Yes, newer *nix bootloaders can scan adn add themselves to other *nix bootloaders. Windows cannot do that, even with their lame grub clone.

Reply Parent Score: 1