Microsoft gearing to stop Linux, going beyond Mac lock-in

[wolfyboy359]

Back to the OP, who really cares? How long will it take for someone to figure out how to jailbreak a pc? My guess is five minutes. Besides, that article is written by someone who obviously has a bias against microsoft. Who knows what the truth of the situation is.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Back to the OP, who really cares? How long will it take for someone to figure out how to jailbreak a pc? My guess is five minutes. Besides, that article is written by someone who obviously has a bias against microsoft. Who knows what the truth of the situation is.

However, this issue is a serious issue for many Linux users. If I understand things correctly. If MS proceeds to go forward, it will mean you lose quite a bit. Especially if you want to change hardware.

One article can be biased against Microsoft, but there are many articles out there saying the same thing, generally, I think. I will try to find a clear explanation so I know what to expect in 6 years when I buy another computer.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Thing is we don't know for sure if it will be a serious thing for Linux users. OEMs may give users the option to turn it off in the BIOS. OEMs still give people the option to buy a computer with Linux pre-installed so it's not a factor at all if you do that. If you build the box yourself, it won't be an issue. It'll really only apply to boxes that are purchased with Windows 8 pre-installed on them. Even then, you may be able to turn the feature off. So we won't know until systems actually start rolling out how big of a problem it'll be if it'll be a problem at all.

In any case, the article does imply that the only reason Microsoft is doing this is to screw Linux users. I don't think that is true at all.

 

[EarlyMon]

Back to the OP, who really cares? How long will it take for someone to figure out how to jailbreak a pc? My guess is five minutes. Besides, that article is written by someone who obviously has a bias against microsoft. Who knows what the truth of the situation is.

Just like Motorola bootloader encryption has been broken in 5 minutes?

Perhaps you'll prefer the non-biased Ars Technica article linked in the thread, or the other cogent arguments offered throughout the thread.

And A.Nonymous, let's agree to disagree.

This is a Microsoft screw job in my opinion.

 

[argedion]

Unfortunately I think in the end the only ones of us who are really going to care are those of us who use a dual boot system. My wife whom as long as she can get on her facebook play a few games, do email, and maybe surf a little bit isn't really going to care about some BIOS thing she knows nothing about to begin with. I believe my wife represents most users out there. As A.Nonymous has stated most users won't change their bad habits this I can agree with. They don't care.

On the Grand Scale those of us whom it looks like it will affect is really a small share of the market. While Linux is starting to gain popularity do to Android systems, its not a big enough share that Microsoft would give it a second thought. So it looks as though we get screwed again by Corporate America.

I guess in the end we really shouldn't be surprised about this. After all Microsoft feels threatened. They are loosing market shares do to the phones and tablets that are out there. For some users such as my wife that is really all they need. She doesn't really need a computer. She can do it all from other devices.

 

[fried]

The relevance? Both are measures taken for "security" (which really isn't secure) that undermine our freedom of choice.

Your freedom of choice begins with the product you choose to buy. The minuscule percentage of users that use Linux will still have plenty of hardware options available to them.

Besides, the article being linked to is based on speculation and outdated information.

When it comes to X86, Microsoft's documentation for vendors requires that UEFI must be able to be disabled and that it must feature the capability to add keys to system firmware. This, in fact, would allow the creators of operating systems such as Linux to create a version that would leverage UEFI on that hardware, so it's an advantage for them. Only hardware that carries the "Built for Windows 8" logo must have UEFI enabled by default, but everything I've said in this previous paragraph still applies.

As for ARM, there is no requirement for UEFI to be disabled on that platform, so for tablets, unfortunately the Linux geeks will have to look elsewhere. Maybe try an iPad....... or maybe not.

 

[argedion]

I think the real point is being missed here. Whether you can disable or not is not the issue here is that its going to be there period. I have a right to purchase a computer or a tablet or a phone and install what I wish on it. (Please don't bring up warranty that is not what is being discussed.) I purchased something with my hard earned money I should have a say as to what is getting used on it and what is not. What it comes with and what it doesn't. Not have some Corporate lame brain dictated system. You see Microsoft writes software If they require something like what is proposed then let them make their own computers. Pre Vista Microsoft didn't care what was in the computer now it seems they are stepping way overboard.

 

[IOWA]

It doesn't undermine your freedom of choice in anyway, nor is the situation you presented remotely analogous.

Note your contradiction about security. If it doesn't help the security, than installing linux on these particular devices shouldn't be an issue. However it will help security, but it is by no means a magical solution. Just the next step forward. Win8 will also have MSE built in to defender, if you didn't know. Exciting stuff, the biggest step since XP SP2.

Contradiction? This isn't going to do much to prevent 99% of malware. However, it will do much to prevent 100% of custom OS mods. Hardly a fair tradeoff. Sure, it *might* help with the more nasty stuff i.e. rootkits, but that's besides the point. There should be a user option to *disable* the "protection". Why? Because it's purchased, not leased hardware. You seem to forget the market power Microsoft has, and certain "incentives" they can "offer" OEM's to add this to all of their products.

I believe the most important thing you are all missing is that Microsoft isn't forcing anything. For starters, the requirement is only for the certification. Manufacturers are in no way required to do make all of their devices that way... not even to make any of them that way. Second, that requirement is for certification on ARM devices only. And for X86 devices seeking this certification, it is required that it can be disabled.

I believe the most important thing YOU are missing is that Microsoft is a power hungry corporation just like the rest. If you somehow don't think they are into coercion you're sadly mistaken. Just like the "licensing" agreements they've come to with Android handset producers. Kind of funny how the OEM's who decided to start producing WP7 got a better deal, now isn't it?

Oh, ARM, x86, doesn't matter, and it shouldn't matter what type of processor is used. x86 is entering the final days of it's lifespan anyway.

Dumbass and wrong about things are not equivalent. However, I was referring to certain fundamental rules of logic, which most in the thread were violating. I had no intention of conveying that I agree with everything he wrote, as I don't.

I'm sorry sir, but your logic seems to be lacking as well. But nobodies logic is perfect, so why throw stones?

And I can easily see a correlation between being a dumbass and being wrong...

 

[zuben el genub]

What will this do to those who build their systems and don't use Windows at all?

I am a dual booter. Ubuntu for general purposes, and XP on a separate hard drive with the internet connection OFF. I use Adobe on XP, I will not be upgrading either.

Other computer is also XP and offline. Runs special software which has problems with security at times. I don't plan to upgrade that, either.

Does this mean I won't be able to have any hardware replaced? I've had motherboards go bad.

 

[zuben el genub]

MS is not happy about Apple's share of the market and the way Apple devices will work with one another. Google is probably also a threat.

Here's a start to lock people to the search engine:
Microsoft's Bing: Mere 'decision engine' no more | ZDNet

If that's right, good thing we have a hosts file. That's where I stuck Bing.

 

[Frisco]

No surprises here. Microsoft's scorched earth business model with regard to competition came to me early on in my Linux adventures, and in a simple way: Going into Best Buy to get the latest SuSe, TurboLinux or RedHat disc over time I began to see fewer and fewer of them on the shelves next to the Windows 98 OS boxes.

I did query a floor monkey about it, and her response was, "I guess Linux (pronounced "lie-nix" by her) isn't selling much."

Down the line it began to come out what was really happening, no more boxed Linux distros retail, but still downloadable and still available from the various distro devs themselves.. but again, no more boxed retail because Bill Gates was literally disallowing them in the stores via his marketing strategies.

For a while there Linux as a community was really screwing itself, branding SuSe and others as "sell outs" because they were in fact boxed and marketed in retail outlets. Too bad. If they'd gotten together instead of bickering, who knows what the result would have been.. something like what we see with Android vs Apple in the smartphone market?

 

[IOWA]

No surprises here. Microsoft's scorched earth business model with regard to competition came to me early on in my Linux adventures, and in a simple way: Going into Best Buy to get the latest SuSe, TurboLinux or RedHat disc over time I began to see fewer and fewer of them on the shelves next to the Windows 98 OS boxes.

I did query a floor monkey about it, and her response was, "I guess Linux (pronounced "lie-nix" by her) isn't selling much."

Down the line it began to come out what was really happening, no more boxed Linux distros retail, but still downloadable and still available from the various distro devs themselves.. but again, no more boxed retail because Bill Gates was literally disallowing them in the stores via his marketing strategies.

For a while there Linux as a community was really screwing itself, branding SuSe and others as "sell outs" because they were in fact boxed and marketed in retail outlets. Too bad. If they'd gotten together instead of bickering, who knows what the result would have been.. something like what we see with Android vs Apple in the smartphone market?

Yup, pretty much all of Microsoft's marketing strategies are geared towards maintaining vendor/user lock in. Even moreso now with "App stores" and now these locked chips. Soon, they'll take out app side loading in the name of "Security".

 

[A.Nonymous]

I think the real point is being missed here. Whether you can disable or not is not the issue here is that its going to be there period. I have a right to purchase a computer or a tablet or a phone and install what I wish on it. (Please don't bring up warranty that is not what is being discussed.) I purchased something with my hard earned money I should have a say as to what is getting used on it and what is not. What it comes with and what it doesn't. Not have some Corporate lame brain dictated system. You see Microsoft writes software If they require something like what is proposed then let them make their own computers. Pre Vista Microsoft didn't care what was in the computer now it seems they are stepping way overboard.

You can still purchase computers that have Linux on them. I know for a fact that HP and Dell will sell you a brand new computer running Linux, Solaris or FreeDOS if you really want. So you still have every right to purchase a system with any OS you choose or no OS at all.

If you purchase a computer with Windows pre-installed, MS already has your money. Why would they care what you did with the OS at that point? They don't have an ecosystem to lock you into like Apple does and they don't make money on the advertising like Google does. You may cheat them out of the sale of a copy of Office that way, but that's it.

What will this do to those who build their systems and don't use Windows at all?

I am a dual booter. Ubuntu for general purposes, and XP on a separate hard drive with the internet connection OFF. I use Adobe on XP, I will not be upgrading either.

Other computer is also XP and offline. Runs special software which has problems with security at times. I don't plan to upgrade that, either.

Does this mean I won't be able to have any hardware replaced? I've had motherboards go bad.

It's only for certified Windows computers. Home build systems have never been MS certified.

No surprises here. Microsoft's scorched earth business model with regard to competition came to me early on in my Linux adventures, and in a simple way: Going into Best Buy to get the latest SuSe, TurboLinux or RedHat disc over time I began to see fewer and fewer of them on the shelves next to the Windows 98 OS boxes.

I did query a floor monkey about it, and her response was, "I guess Linux (pronounced "lie-nix" by her) isn't selling much."

Down the line it began to come out what was really happening, no more boxed Linux distros retail, but still downloadable and still available from the various distro devs themselves.. but again, no more boxed retail because Bill Gates was literally disallowing them in the stores via his marketing strategies.

For a while there Linux as a community was really screwing itself, branding SuSe and others as "sell outs" because they were in fact boxed and marketed in retail outlets. Too bad. If they'd gotten together instead of bickering, who knows what the result would have been.. something like what we see with Android vs Apple in the smartphone market?

Not sure what the point is. Assuming the floor monkey was correct and Linux wasn't selling, why would a store stock it? Why should a store stock a product that's not selling?

 

[Frisco]

Not sure what the point is. Assuming the floor monkey was correct and Linux wasn't selling, why would a store stock it? Why should a store stock a product that's not selling?

The point is an anecdotal reference to Microsoft's business tactics (see "scorched earth business model with regard to competition" phrase in my post quoted by you).

Mild treatise on that:

Microsoft Attacks Linux Competition Using Lawsuits and Threats (With Software Patents), Pays Acacia/IP Innovation After Anti-Linux Lawsuit | Techrights

Thus the "poor sales" in a major retail outlet.

Linux was exciting to discover, as it was "something else," an alternative to Windows 95. I had no idea Gates was the kind of person who would allow for destruction of his competition via strong arm strategies with the retail outlets.

Linux remains, but again, it would have been quite the retail competitor had the retail markets for OSs been fair and untouched by Gates' relentless, rather frothing hatred for anything on a computer that is not his Windows.

 

[IOWA]

The point is an anecdotal reference to Microsoft's business tactics (see "scorched earth business model with regard to competition" phrase in my post quoted by you).

Mild treatise on that:

Microsoft Attacks Linux Competition Using Lawsuits and Threats (With Software Patents), Pays Acacia/IP Innovation After Anti-Linux Lawsuit | Techrights

Thus the "poor sales" in a major retail outlet.

Linux was exciting to discover, as it was "something else," an alternative to Windows 95. I had no idea Gates was the kind of person who would allow for destruction of his competition via strong arm strategies with the retail outlets.

Linux remains, but again, it would have been quite the retail competitor had the retail markets for OSs been fair and untouched by Gates' relentless, rather frothing hatred for anything on a computer that is not his Windows.

Yet another clear cut case where "IP" is holding us back technologically. I'm willing to be if "IP" didn't exist, and only actual patents involving a real process of some sort existed, we'd be much further along with technology than we are today.

 

[A.Nonymous]

The point is an anecdotal reference to Microsoft's business tactics (see "scorched earth business model with regard to competition" phrase in my post quoted by you).

Mild treatise on that:

Microsoft Attacks Linux Competition Using Lawsuits and Threats (With Software Patents), Pays Acacia/IP Innovation After Anti-Linux Lawsuit | Techrights

Thus the "poor sales" in a major retail outlet.

Linux was exciting to discover, as it was "something else," an alternative to Windows 95. I had no idea Gates was the kind of person who would allow for destruction of his competition via strong arm strategies with the retail outlets.

Linux remains, but again, it would have been quite the retail competitor had the retail markets for OSs been fair and untouched by Gates' relentless, rather frothing hatred for anything on a computer that is not his Windows.

I guess I still fail to see your point. MS is going after Android with patent law suits. Ok. This is different from all the other companies suing each other with patent law suits how?

Why would you expect a company to not try to destroy it's competition? Nothing it did to compete with Linux was illegal. You had one company backing one product and putting it on every piece of hardware that would run it. On the other hand you had Linux which had half a dozen distros and all of them were different from each other. Consumers, for a variety of reasons, weren't interested in them. None of them were popular and none of them sold well. So you think Microsoft should've encouraged retailers to stock it's competitors products even though they didn't sell well and consumer's weren't interested in them?

Again, why would you expect a company to not try to put it's competitors out of business? That is why companies are in business in the first place.

 

[EarlyMon]

So, it's natural to expect Microsoft to put competitors out of business.

Companies are in business to put each other out of business.

Hmmmm.

 

[Frisco]

If it were about competition alone pushing non-Windows operating systems off the shelves, there would be no issue here.

True competition in the marketplace, in retail, is about purchaser choices.

But if the competing product is denied public retail exposure because the richest company employs a reward strategy for the stores to not stock the other products, competition has stopped.

And then of course there are those lawsuits, some tossed here and there as frivolous, but on they go. Interesting to see that same strategy by Apple, too. It's almost as if the close proximity to Microsoft by Apple's founders exposed them to the same disease of greed Gates has always exhibited.

 

[EarlyMon]

Going back to the beginnings with Apple, I'd say Jobs and Gates were always alike that way.

That goes back to a comment I made elsewhere in the Lounge - the rapid rise to wealth leads some to believe that they are privileged and immune when they are really only repeating past mistakes in the history of American business.

Mobile devices and broadband carriers are doing to the desktop what trucks and highways did to the railroads.

It's a plain repeat happening before our eyes.

 

[argedion]

Contradiction? This isn't going to do much to prevent 99% of malware. However, it will do much to prevent 100% of custom OS mods. Hardly a fair tradeoff.

Microsoft doesnt trade they dictate. I do think your right however it does go against my freedoms.

No surprises here. Microsoft's scorched earth business model with regard to competition came to me early on in my Linux adventures, and in a simple way: Going into Best Buy to get the latest SuSe, TurboLinux or RedHat disc over time I began to see fewer and fewer of them on the shelves next to the Windows 98 OS boxes.

I did query a floor monkey about it, and her response was, "I guess Linux (pronounced "lie-nix" by her) isn't selling much."

yes microsoft bullied this type of business along with OEMs that if they want to sell Windows they must abide by the rules that gates and friends lay out or else.

"floor monkey" LMAO
A True uneducated floor monkey no doubt Acording to Linus Torivalds its pronouced (Lin ux) but what would he know after all he was the one who created it.

Yup, pretty much all of Microsoft's marketing strategies are geared towards maintaining vendor/user lock in. Even moreso now with "App stores" and now these locked chips. Soon, they'll take out app side loading in the name of "Security".

and have us arrested for not conforming

You can still purchase computers that have Linux on them. I know for a fact that HP and Dell will sell you a brand new computer running Linux, Solaris or FreeDOS if you really want. So you still have every right to purchase a system with any OS you choose or no OS at all.

I bet you argued with your mother on what side the table the salt goes on huh?

The point is an anecdotal reference to Microsoft's business tactics (see "scorched earth business model with regard to competition" phrase in my post quoted by you).

Linux was exciting to discover, as it was "something else," an alternative to Windows 95. I had no idea Gates was the kind of person who would allow for destruction of his competition via strong arm strategies with the retail outlets.

Linux remains, but again, it would have been quite the retail competitor had the retail markets for OSs been fair and untouched by Gates' relentless, rather frothing hatred for anything on a computer that is not his Windows.

If you remember Dr DOS it was treated with the same kind of strong arm as Linux recieved a few short years later. In fact Microsoft ended up bankrupting Caldera.

I guess I still fail to see your point.

BINGO

So, it's natural to expect Microsoft to put competitors out of business.

Companies are in business to put each other out of business.

Hmmmm.

Well I know its natural to expect Microsoft to do it.

I can think of another Company back in the 70's that was a monopoly like Microsoft is trying to become. The Government of that time had the Major Company Split. And while the original Company is still in business most of its competitors are now either prepay or Cell Phones. Yes the Company was AT&T. Curious if the Government would have the kind of balls it did back then to repeat history.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Perhaps its worth getting on to politicians about this? Microsoft may be a private company, but its has a monopoly not obtained entirely fairly (to say the least), so intervening would be in the public interest. Maybe once we get some clearer info it might be worth writing to your local Congressman/MEP/Whatever about this.

 

[EarlyMon]

Microsoft Tries to Spin Anti-Linux UEFI Measures, Ubuntu Tablets Possibly Affected | Techrights

Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices - SFLC Blog - Software Freedom Law Center

How UEFI Will Change Your Computer Management - Input Output

 

[ElasticNinja]

Microsoft Tries to Spin Anti-Linux UEFI Measures, Ubuntu Tablets Possibly Affected | Techrights

Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices - SFLC Blog - Software Freedom Law Center

How UEFI Will Change Your Computer Management - Input Output

Given how the rules are blatantly different for ARM devices, it seems quite obvious that this is about being anti-competitive rather then anything to do with security.

 

[wolfyboy359]

Just like Motorola bootloader encryption has been broken in 5 minutes?

Perhaps you'll prefer the non-biased Ars Technica article linked in the thread, or the other cogent arguments offered throughout the thread.

And A.Nonymous, let's agree to disagree.

This is a Microsoft screw job in my opinion.

I didn't see the word "encryption" anywhere in that article. And I read the whole thing and the whole thing was biased.

 

[EarlyMon]

I didn't see the word "encryption" anywhere in that article. And I read the whole thing and the whole thing was biased.

Security keying involves encryption by definition.

And you referred to the OP link as biased. Fair enough. I submitted that the Ars one was not, and I think you are still discussing the OP link? Nor are the other three I posted above biased.