-
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
- Thread starter EarlyMon
- Start date
9to5cynic
Android Expert
If anyone wants the actual link to the files from MS, it is right here:
Windows 8 Hardware Certification Requirements
You'll need to agree to their terms, and download a pdf file, there are three to choose from.
Windows 8 Hardware Certification Requirements
You'll need to agree to their terms, and download a pdf file, there are three to choose from.
IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
I find it disgusting that you make such a big deal about providing your sources.
IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
Perhaps you should have posted it in the first place, most of this could have been avoided
See how that works? It's always easy to pass the buck.
Lots of hostility and attitude over the request for a link.
Clearly, while I was being accused of having an agenda and dissembling, I continued to provide rationale and documentation.
Compare and contrast with the need to be rude with the childish Let Me Google That For You.
Anyway, thanks to 9to5cynic for the link!
As it has been tainted by a rude delivery, I'll be sure to study it carefully.
After all, the honestly of Microsoft and their agents is legendary.
Meanwhile, the statements I have linked from UEFI.org and the Linux community stands on their own merits.
As does the clear lack of understanding the proposed implementation while lecturing people that this was implemented for speed and security stands on its own demerits.
The thread has clearly been justified. 
Clearly, while I was being accused of having an agenda and dissembling, I continued to provide rationale and documentation.
Compare and contrast with the need to be rude with the childish Let Me Google That For You.
Anyway, thanks to 9to5cynic for the link!
As it has been tainted by a rude delivery, I'll be sure to study it carefully.
After all, the honestly of Microsoft and their agents is legendary.
Meanwhile, the statements I have linked from UEFI.org and the Linux community stands on their own merits.
As does the clear lack of understanding the proposed implementation while lecturing people that this was implemented for speed and security stands on its own demerits.
The thread has clearly been justified.
zuben el genub
Extreme Android User
I do understand the security - I said before that MS used to let OEM ship computers with everything in IE open and companies never told the users to fix settings. It was almost like MS didn't believe that anyone would mess with any product.
MS gradually realized that mistake and have been tightening security ever since to protect users who won't protect themselves. I suppose MS is also not happy about those of us who turned off security center as we prefer other products rather than MS.
From what I've read, MS is planning to integrate phones, tablets, pcs, and what have you into one system a la Apple. I guess MS is now thinking that all users are dumb and doing a CYA.
"One ring to rule them all."
There will probably be workarounds. Especially in hardware.
MS gradually realized that mistake and have been tightening security ever since to protect users who won't protect themselves. I suppose MS is also not happy about those of us who turned off security center as we prefer other products rather than MS.
From what I've read, MS is planning to integrate phones, tablets, pcs, and what have you into one system a la Apple. I guess MS is now thinking that all users are dumb and doing a CYA.
"One ring to rule them all."
There will probably be workarounds. Especially in hardware.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
Lots of hostility and attitude over the request for a link.
Clearly, while I was being accused of having an agenda and dissembling, I continued to provide rationale and documentation.
Compare and contrast with the need to be rude with the childish Let Me Google That For You.
Anyway, thanks to 9to5cynic for the link!
As it has been tainted by a rude delivery, I'll be sure to study it carefully.
After all, the honestly of Microsoft and their agents is legendary.
Meanwhile, the statements I have linked from UEFI.org and the Linux community stands on their own merits.
As does the clear lack of understanding the proposed implementation while lecturing people that this was implemented for speed and security stands on its own demerits.
The thread has clearly been justified.
I still don't buy the premise that Microsoft is doing this with the primary intent of screwing Linux users.
The null hypothesis here would be that Microsoft is doing this to block malware and viruses as you said.
Disproving that hypothesis means proving that MS considers Linux a threat (why??? small, and not growing market share) and has determined to stamp it out (again, why??). Plus, if you buy a computer with Windows pre-installed (which is the only case this would apply to), then MS already has your money. Why would they care at that point? So I find the entire argument tenuous at best.
9to5cynic
Android Expert
I would say that linux does have a growing market share, or at least one in the future. Canonical plans to bring the LTS support for desktop ubuntu to five years to match that of server. Their claim is that :
Now, I would say that canonical is a biased source in this particular case, but I don't really see much reason for them to make this switch to just try to swindle people into using ubuntu...
Ubuntu 12.04 to feature extended support period for desktop users | Canonical
Now, I would say that canonical is a biased source in this particular case, but I don't really see much reason for them to make this switch to just try to swindle people into using ubuntu...
Sulfur
Member
Lots of hostility and attitude over the request for a link.
Clearly, while I was being accused of having an agenda and dissembling, I continued to provide rationale and documentation.
Compare and contrast with the need to be rude with the childish Let Me Google That For You.
Anyway, thanks to 9to5cynic for the link!
As it has been tainted by a rude delivery, I'll be sure to study it carefully.
After all, the honestly of Microsoft and their agents is legendary.
Meanwhile, the statements I have linked from UEFI.org and the Linux community stands on their own merits.
As does the clear lack of understanding the proposed implementation while lecturing people that this was implemented for speed and security stands on its own demerits.
The thread has clearly been justified.
Not hostility, disgust. You should have already had the paper, or at least known the part that was being discussed. Please do study it carefully. It should be noted that the only thing I've been called before this thread in reference to Microsoft was a 'hater'. I'm not their cheerleader. I just can't stand to see someone drug through the mud for something they didn't say or do, to see anger and hatred incited for something they didn't say or do. And I didn't say that's why it was implemented, I hypothesized possible advantages. I said I couldn't speak for them.
It wasn't justified. You said it yourself, if it was just mobile devices you'd be fine with it. Well it isn't even all mobile devices, just ARM devices. You've in no way shown this was done to halt Linux dual booting, and you are incapable of doing so. End of story. I'm done here. Happy distorting and Microsoft hating.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
Yet MS has a 90% share in the desktop/laptop OS realm and that isn't going anywhere. Their mobile share is crap, but no one is buying WP7 devices specifically to flash to Android or another OS. The null hypothesis still holds up.
IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
If your argument is that MS is using this as a means to make their users do the forced upgrade march, then I don't see how that applies to Linux users at all. Also, they are far from the only company that does the forced upgrade thing to their consumers.
IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
Umm, why are you making excuses for them? And how it applies? It keeps people from switching the OS completely for a different one. I don't get how you don't get it. Truly, I don't. If you have one logical bone in your body, you'd understand easily.
One thing. Do you REALLY think Microsoft cares what people do to their systems?
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
From the "Not sure if this applies here so delete or move it Mr. Moderator" department:
Apple now largest computer maker, sold more iPads alone than HP sold PCs
Apple only allows iOS/OSX. No way to install anything but these operating systems. Since (apparently) they are now the largest computer (if you consider the iPad to be a computer) manufacturer on the planet, a closed system does not seem to be a problem for lots of people.
Apple saw a 26% increase in sales of their computers and a record quarterly revenue of $46.33 billion. That is quarterly, not annual. Seems like a minor success with closed systems to me.
Linux is small and most people will never install it. So there are two computers: Apple and Windows.
Linux will grow and many will use it, but it will likely never be a big deal.
Apple now largest computer maker, sold more iPads alone than HP sold PCs
Apple only allows iOS/OSX. No way to install anything but these operating systems. Since (apparently) they are now the largest computer (if you consider the iPad to be a computer) manufacturer on the planet, a closed system does not seem to be a problem for lots of people.
Apple saw a 26% increase in sales of their computers and a record quarterly revenue of $46.33 billion. That is quarterly, not annual. Seems like a minor success with closed systems to me.
Linux is small and most people will never install it. So there are two computers: Apple and Windows.
Linux will grow and many will use it, but it will likely never be a big deal.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
Umm, why are you making excuses for them? And how it applies? It keeps people from switching the OS completely for a different one. I don't get how you don't get it. Truly, I don't. If you have one logical bone in your body, you'd understand easily.
One thing. Do you REALLY think Microsoft cares what people do to their systems?
The argument being made in the first post is that Microsoft is seeking to squash Linux therefore they have implemented this policy. The goal of the policy, according to the first post, is to block Linux from being installed on the desktop. I argue that that is not the case at all. The goal is to block malware. A side effect is Linux being difficult to install. Yes, MS does care what people do to their systems because THEY get blamed for it.
IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
If the goal was truly only to block malware, then whynot make a standard way to disable the option on ALL devices for those that want to?
MeepMeepChu
Newbie
um... isn't x86 over half a decade out of date? So by the time 8 is stable (and not just by original MS vista-like standards) the only people using it will be (perhaps former) power users holding on to it for sentimental reasons... kind of like abaci (abacusses?).
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
I think you are correct. The net being what it is, things are often spun out of control and the world starts collapsing. I still maintain we need to wait and see. So far, we do not know what will happen.
Fortunately, I'll never need to worry about it because my work machine will never see a net connection or a single email. Most iPad users will likely never suffer due to Apple's Sandbox and the inability to install anything except from the Apple store.
Oh, no you don't!
I made the OP. The article linked says Linux and older Windows, a position that I have steadfastly maintained throughout the thread.
And while you have been consistent about this being primarily about rootkits, not everyone against the OP agrees with you on that point. Sulfur explicitly said that that one reason wasn't the point at all, and that UEFI offered a host of other benefits.
So, please re-state your case.
PS - I am always amused when FUD supporters can't stick to facts but tell me what I _should_ have read, done, and said. Doesn't apply to anyone still posting here, I just wanted to share that comedy.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
There may be technical reasons for it. I don't know. I don't think their main goal is to block legacy OSes and other OSes.
As I said, this doesn't apply at all to home built computers. How many Linux users intentionally buy brand new computers for the purposes of installing Linux? I honestly don't now. Even if they did, you can buy new computers that come with Linux pre-installed. This doesn't apply at all in those cases.
Oh, no you don't!
I made the OP. The article linked says Linux and older Windows, a position that I have steadfastly maintained throughout the thread.
And while you have been consistent about this being primarily about rootkits, not everyone against the OP agrees with you on that point. Sulfur explicitly said that that one reason wasn't the point at all, and that UEFI offered a host of other benefits.
So, please re-state your case.
PS - I am always amused when FUD supporters can't stick to facts but tell me what I _should_ have read, done, and said. Doesn't apply to anyone still posting here, I just wanted to share that comedy.
I can't speak for Sulfur and won't claim it does. I just don't see anything to indicate malevolency on MS's part. I don't dispute that this could potentially make it harder to load Linux or a legacy OS on some computers. I just don't think that is the primary objective here. It's a side effect of the decision.
jmar
Nexican
I have been waiting for the correct moment to say something in this thread (read: now is the time).
Those who believe MS is benevolent in its actions surrounding malware you have a point: Windows is the target of the majority of viruses/trojans/etc. That said, it is understandable that a company would do SOMETHING to prevent attacks. But has Microsoft ever considered rebuilding the OS from scratch to fend off this nonsense?
Think about it: When Apple launched its Walled Garden, OSX, it was a complete 180 from all MAC OS's that had preceded it. Built on the Unix kernel(read: stable, dev friendly, vulnerable to attacks but not nearly on a scale seen by MS) from the ground up, with planned backward compatibility (read: cocoa apps, etc) and a commitment to a unified experience. Regardless of market share, this methodology rescued a fledgling company and created a jumping off point for greatness, innovation and birth/rebirth of (an) industry. Why does this apply???????
Windows, even in its current iCore 64-bit form is still DOS at its heart. And one could teach a monkey the keystrokes necessary to program a virus/trojan/etc to compromise this flawed environment. So MS is lazily taking a step to lock down the hardware since it is abundantly clear that while it may have gotten fortunate to have such a huge market share in the PC world, stability and security is had in a UNIX based environment, not in an outdated, hacked-over, and over, and over, (read: Windows 2000 Pro was THE MOST "secure" iteration of Win but who cares now?) OS. Kudos to MS in its lazy approach to security (lol). Boo to MS for trying to implement security that blocks a truly stable environment. You only have to look at OSX's 12 years of outstanding security and UNIX's long standing history of the same to deduce: MS needs to rebuild!
I don't like that Microsoft is taking this approach. Until proven of anti-trust it can run with this nonsense.
Take off the blinders...Linux is Super Awesome.
BTW...I have been a user of MAC OS.x, OSX.x, Basic, DOS, Windows.x and Ubuntu.
I own an iPod Shuffle and a Verizon Samsung Galaxy Nexus. In think iPhones are sexy looking but too impractical for my my inner geek. My name is jmar and this is my 2¢.
Got your back Mr. Early.
jmar
Those who believe MS is benevolent in its actions surrounding malware you have a point: Windows is the target of the majority of viruses/trojans/etc. That said, it is understandable that a company would do SOMETHING to prevent attacks. But has Microsoft ever considered rebuilding the OS from scratch to fend off this nonsense?
Think about it: When Apple launched its Walled Garden, OSX, it was a complete 180 from all MAC OS's that had preceded it. Built on the Unix kernel(read: stable, dev friendly, vulnerable to attacks but not nearly on a scale seen by MS) from the ground up, with planned backward compatibility (read: cocoa apps, etc) and a commitment to a unified experience. Regardless of market share, this methodology rescued a fledgling company and created a jumping off point for greatness, innovation and birth/rebirth of (an) industry. Why does this apply???????
Windows, even in its current iCore 64-bit form is still DOS at its heart. And one could teach a monkey the keystrokes necessary to program a virus/trojan/etc to compromise this flawed environment. So MS is lazily taking a step to lock down the hardware since it is abundantly clear that while it may have gotten fortunate to have such a huge market share in the PC world, stability and security is had in a UNIX based environment, not in an outdated, hacked-over, and over, and over, (read: Windows 2000 Pro was THE MOST "secure" iteration of Win but who cares now?) OS. Kudos to MS in its lazy approach to security (lol). Boo to MS for trying to implement security that blocks a truly stable environment. You only have to look at OSX's 12 years of outstanding security and UNIX's long standing history of the same to deduce: MS needs to rebuild!
I don't like that Microsoft is taking this approach. Until proven of anti-trust it can run with this nonsense.
Take off the blinders...Linux is Super Awesome.
BTW...I have been a user of MAC OS.x, OSX.x, Basic, DOS, Windows.x and Ubuntu.
I own an iPod Shuffle and a Verizon Samsung Galaxy Nexus. In think iPhones are sexy looking but too impractical for my my inner geek. My name is jmar and this is my 2¢.
Got your back Mr. Early.
jmar
linuxrich
Well-Known Member
I'd like to ask for two counts to be taken into consideration m'lud. I would have bought a Linux ready/pre-installed machine in both cases but:
- It was cheaper/more convenient to buy what I eventually did.
- I got some perverse satisfaction knowing that Microsoft and others would have subsidised my purchase with their c**pware 'free for 30 days trial' nonsense. Which unceremoniously got consigned to /dev/null before it ever saw the light of day.
zuben el genub
Extreme Android User
Users of special proprietary software will also cling to it.
Some crafting/embroidery software can be up to 2 years behind the curve.
Some software is not cheap, costing 2 grand. Some of this software also did not like security on installation. You had to turn security off to install.
You also might have reached the point where an upgrade isn't worth it. It's mostly just cosmetic bells and whistles.
Wine will never support these programs. So I keep my special programs on separate boxes and offline.