• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

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

A.Nonymous said:
Just last week I had a user who couldn't get a cell phone repeater online. She had plugged the thing directly into the console port of the firewall could not figure out why it would not connect to the Internet.
Click to expand...

I'd get fired. Be honest. Wouldn't you like to go to their house, and just spank them on the forehead while saying "DERP DERP DERP"? I'd enjoy that.
 
EarlyMon said:
Sulfur -

My example did indeed require that it boot and execute.

And it's quite interesting that you believe that some bad sectors can be worse than others when occurring where the operating system is located. Or that USB hardware can't be used in a boot sequence.

And 9to5cynic was simply showing that a dongle might not be as impractical as you feel.

As a great deal of this debate has been about UEFI and rootkits, I was interested to hear that you believe it is there to provide other benefits.

Indeed -

UEFI - About UEFI

But then again -

Microsoft takes aim at rootkits, misses - Hardware - Technology - News - iTnews.com.au

On the other hand -

Windows Secure Boot to abolish rootkits ...duh

And while it was entertaining to read that the reason the Linux community hates this is because they want people to get rootkits, the Linux community, practical as ever, is concerned that -

UEFI and "secure boot" [LWN.net]

in addition to it being buggy. I think I'll leave others to worry that Apple is also on board UEFI.

But I digress. You were about to explain that aside from the mighty rootkit-slaying feature of secure mode, UEFI offers so much more than secure boot. What would that be? Anything from this?

UEFI - UEFI Learning Center
Click to expand...

I didn't say your example didn't require that it boot and execute. Its very true about bad OS sectors. I never said usb devices couldn't be used at boot.

I didn't read the links, but you've completely distracted from the point. And this is all riding on a yet unproven assumption that Microsoft pushed manufacturers to move to UEFI. Not that its even relevant to the actual discussion.

No, I wasn't. "Rootkit-slaying" is also an obvious exaggeration. And I believe increased speed and power are good reasons to move to it. Merely being able to bring up possible alternatives in no way proves Microsoft is forcing everyone to move to UEFI to stop Linux. Especially considering that the only place Linux currently represents a threat to Microsoft, PCs, must be able to have secure boot disabled in order to receive Microsoft's hardware certification.
 
I think it's a huge stretch to say that Linux represents a threat to MS in the PC market. I think you might be able to make that argument for Apple, but that would be it. Linux doesn't really pose a threat to MS anywhere honestly. MS owns the desktop world. They own the server market with the exception of web servers. Linux owns that department and MS isn't making any headway. In the tablet world, they compete with iOS and Android and no one is going to buy a Win8 tablet and flash Android on it except for a few nerds.
 
Right, I agree. I should have said 'the place that Linux poses the biggest threat, non-ARM devices,'. Didn't mean to imply that the threat was substantial at the moment.
 
I have backed my position with links. And the ignored links were informative.

There is a claim on the table for what Microsoft requires with no supporting references.

If such links materialize they'd best align with published materials at uefi.org to be believable.

And clarifying my position neither indicts my reading comprehension nor my motives.

Sulfur, you are free to continue holding your position that secure uefi will be faster in firmware. It simply indicates to me that you don't understand the secure deployment architecture as well as you think, nor does it seem that you're considering the baggage that comes with UEFI for non-secure use.

Until you are able to substantiate rather than repeat your claims there's not much to discuss.
 
A.Nonymous said:
I think it's a huge stretch to say that Linux represents a threat to MS in the PC market. I think you might be able to make that argument for Apple, but that would be it. Linux doesn't really pose a threat to MS anywhere honestly. MS owns the desktop world. They own the server market with the exception of web servers. Linux owns that department and MS isn't making any headway. In the tablet world, they compete with iOS and Android and no one is going to buy a Win8 tablet and flash Android on it except for a few nerds.
Click to expand...

Linux is critical to the US Department of Defense, the US Postal Service and the US judiciary, as well as a host of state and municipal governments.

Linux gets a sniffle and critical services you rely on could catch a cold.

And Microsoft wants those customers back.
 
Those links do absolutely nothing to show that Microsoft is requiring manufacturers to implement UEFI in order to stop Linux.

I assume the claim you're referring to about what Microsoft requires is what I've said? I drew straight from the actual guidelines published by Microsoft, the exact paper that led to this shitstorm. Maybe you should have taken a look at it yourself.

Now you claim I don't understand secure deployment architecture, as if I have demonstrated I don't. It isn't even relevant, for starters. It living on the hard drive is slower and less secure, period. That said, I still don't how them implementing a different software solution that is only on the hard drive would change anything. You said cost and lock in. I've already explained that the "lock in" is a distortion of the facts at best. Maybe it would be cheaper, but so what. And the solution you presented wouldn't be without costs either.

What claims need I substantiate? The paper Microsoft released (which concerns certification only, NOT A MANDATE) hold the facts, that non-ARM devices MUST have the option to disable secure boot in firmware by a physically present user. If you're curious about the capabilities or performance improvements it brings to the table, there is plenty of information about it out there, but it is not important to the discussion. Intel alone has published tons of papers concerning it.
 
I think you may be forgetting that with Microsoft the leading desktop software vendor, they have a very big say in what goes on in the hardware world. If MS made it so only certified devices could install windows, then every device would be certified because it (windows) contains the vast majority of the market share.
 
9to5cynic said:
I think you may be forgetting that with Microsoft the leading desktop software vendor, they have a very big say in what goes on in the hardware world. If MS made it so only certified devices could install windows, then every device would be certified because it (windows) contains the vast majority of the market share.
Click to expand...

Even IF they did that, (which would be painting an anti-trust bullseye on themselves IMO) it wouldn't prove that they were doing it to try to stop Linux. The fact that it makes it difficult if not impossible to load Linux doesn't prove that that was their intention in the first place. I don't think the MS execs are sitting in their board room in Redmond twirling their mustaches and trying to come up with ways to squash Linux on the desktop. They don't care. Linux desktop share is measured in single digits and is no threat to them. Besides, if you buy a computer with Windows pre-installed they already have your money.
 
I don't know if it matters if it is their intention (to make it difficult to install linux).... with the whole browser wars, I'm sure they said they were just trying to make it easier for people to get online by including IE... though the government saw it as anti-competitive.

And I don't remember who said it, but it was stated that linux is a threat to mac osx, and we can all agree that mac osx is a threat to windows (maybe not a major threat, but at least a minor one), therefore, couldn't we say that linux is (in extent) a threat to microsoft . .? ;)

Anyway, I like how you said twirling their mustaches, that made me smile. :D
;)
 
Linux is NOT a competitor .
Old Windows users are the targets !!!.

/speculation. Should be taken in jest .

But Vista's Mainstream support ends in April .What if Windows wont allow Vista to run on "Windows 8" ready hardware .
Windows XP will be blocked without a doubt
Linux poses a threat when those Vista and XP users are just pissed off too much . Still negligible threat really ...
Many folks dont want to upgrade because they are accustomed to the old interfaces and stuff .
Now they wont have an option to downgrade .
And it's not just windows .
Unity and GNOME 3 are prime examples of what happens when people are forced to change the style or pattern of work .

People went back to XP after the Vista debacle (weren't the XP sales better after release of Vista or something )
If Hardware Manufacturers force people to buy secure boot devices ,chances are the non "windows 8 "certified Hardware will be sell more forcing the "people I mean manufacturers" to rethink their strategy .

Ofcourse some half- informed joker(like me ) will spread the rumor that Windows XP(or 7 just for the kicks) will no longer run on windows 8 certified hardware causing mass panic and ridiculous urban legends .

Lose-Lose situation for Microsoft
 
Keep in mind that the manufacturers have an incentive to go along with secure boot as it has the potential to turn hardware that is no longer supported by Microsoft into a doorstop, thus encouraging sales of new hardware.

What we
 
^^^
Agreed .If they manage to sell the "Windows 8 certified hardware".

Chances are some obscure company wont opt for the "certification" and suddenly the manufacturers will have a new competitor which they never wanted ,forcing them to release "Non certified Hardware" just to keep up .
Again it's just a speculation .
 
Yes I agree. We are all obsolete. And won't make the cut. Windows has world domination it would not surprize me to find that the Anti-Christ works at Microsoft
 
Sulfur said:
Those links do absolutely nothing to show that Microsoft is requiring manufacturers to implement UEFI in order to stop Linux.

I assume the claim you're referring to about what Microsoft requires is what I've said? I drew straight from the actual guidelines published by Microsoft, the exact paper that led to this shitstorm. Maybe you should have taken a look at it yourself.

Now you claim I don't understand secure deployment architecture, as if I have demonstrated I don't. It isn't even relevant, for starters. It living on the hard drive is slower and less secure, period. That said, I still don't how them implementing a different software solution that is only on the hard drive would change anything. You said cost and lock in. I've already explained that the "lock in" is a distortion of the facts at best. Maybe it would be cheaper, but so what. And the solution you presented wouldn't be without costs either.

What claims need I substantiate? The paper Microsoft released (which concerns certification only, NOT A MANDATE) hold the facts, that non-ARM devices MUST have the option to disable secure boot in firmware by a physically present user. If you're curious about the capabilities or performance improvements it brings to the table, there is plenty of information about it out there, but it is not important to the discussion. Intel alone has published tons of papers concerning it.
Click to expand...

Translation: the truth is out there, no need for you to provide any links from Microsoft you claim to have seen substantiating what you say, despite being asked nicely.

And your lack of experience in security systems and systems programming is irrelevant, you know what runs best and fastest.

Shame you didn't read the material that I linked for you. You'd have discovered that much of the secure side of Microsoft's code will be on the hard drive.

What?

You thought Microsoft was going to give code to a consortium to embed in firmware?

Anyway, thanks for sharing your opinions. :)
 
argedion said:
Yes I agree. We are all obsolete. And won't make the cut. Windows has world domination it would not surprize me to find that the Anti-Christ works at Microsoft in the cafeteria washing dishes.
Click to expand...

Ftfy.

After all, they do have top standards.

(Joking aside, Microsoft does employ some of the top minds in software R&D.)
 
Yes Microsoft does. The only thing with Linux that I hate is no real unity. Yes Fedora/Red Hat users stand together as debian users stand together but rarely will they stand together
 
EarlyMon said:
Translation: the truth is out there, no need for you to provide any links from Microsoft you claim to have seen substantiating what you say, despite being asked nicely.

And your lack of experience in security systems and systems programming is irrelevant, you know what runs best and fastest.

Shame you didn't read the material that I linked for you. You'd have discovered that much of the secure side of Microsoft's code will be on the hard drive.

What?

You thought Microsoft was going to give code to a consortium to embed in firmware?

Anyway, thanks for sharing your opinions. :)
Click to expand...

You have no idea what my experience with them are, nor I your experience. That's why I wouldn't make such silly claims.

So let me get this straight... because you haven't read the document that led you to create this absurd topic that is filled with irrational Microsoft hate based on fear of something they aren't doing, the truth is opinion? You obviously have no idea how many keys are used in this system, but I digress. It doesn't matter. That isn't the discussion. That fact that in the same document, Microsoft requires the platform key be stored in firmware isn't relevant. The fact that the same document has numerous requirements for where the other keys/databases must or should be is also irrelevant to you, I'm sure.

Everyone is free to do as the please, like normal.

Microsoft is not requiring anything, just offering a certification.

The certification requires that all non-ARM systems be able to disable secure boot.

Manufacturers are free to do as they please.



Source: the document Microsoft released that led to the internet shit storm. Here, I did the work for you.

 "21. MANDATORY: Enable/Disable Secure Boot. On non-ARM systems, it is required to implement the ability to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup. A physically present user must be allowed to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup without possession of PKpriv. Programmatic disabling of Secure Boot either during Boot Services or after exiting EFI Boot Services MUST NOT be possible. Disabling Secure MUST NOT be possible on ARM systems."
 
Sulfur said:
Source: the document Microsoft released that led to the internet shit storm. Here, I did the work for you.

 "21. MANDATORY: Enable/Disable Secure Boot. On non-ARM systems, it is required to implement the ability to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup. A physically present user must be allowed to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup without possession of PKpriv. Programmatic disabling of Secure Boot either during Boot Services or after exiting EFI Boot Services MUST NOT be possible. Disabling Secure MUST NOT be possible on ARM systems."
Click to expand...
Not trying to come across as rude, but usually the source should include a link. Because otherwise someone could in theory do this:


SOURCE: Microsoft's hidden meetings that I was invited to

Section 2.4
We are forcing all original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to have secure boot in order to lock down alternative operating systems under the guise of protecting from malware.


Maybe I missed the link that you are referencing... but I just didn't see it there..

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the issue.
 
:D

You find it disgusting that on the internet you should place a link. If you were not going to site the source, why include it in the first place?

All of my comments have been in regards to either links that Early posted, or references to the past anti-trust issues MS faced.

I guess we'll have to disagree on that issue too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom