Slashdot Mirror
How Microsoft Can Lock Linux Off Windows 8 PCs
Julie188 writes "Windows 8 PCs will use the next-generation booting specification known as Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI). In fact, Windows 8 logo devices will be required to use the secure boot portion of the new spec. Secure UEFI is intended to thwart rootkit infections by using PKI authentication before allowing executables or drivers to be loaded onto the device. Problem is, unless the device manufacturer gives a key to the device owner, it can also be used to keep the PC's owner from wiping out the current OS and installing another option, such as Linux."
Trusted Boot prevents the use of alternative boot disks. It is controlled from chips soldered onto the motherboard and PKI keys.
No key, no boot. Replacing drives or using external drives does not help. There is no "BIOS Reset" option and you can't short jumpers to clear it.
Google uses it on the CR-48 Chromebooks, but also includes a little switch under the battery to turn it off. With it turned on, the system boots only Google-signed images and nothing else. Period.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
"Try it again?" They haven't stopped.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Microsoft said they're trying to figure out how to allow users to dual-boot. In the //build/ video discussing the new Windows 8 boot process, the presenter said they were trying to figure out how to keep boot secure but still allow users to boot into Windows 7, since Windows 7 doesn't support this.
And if it works for Windows 7, it'll probably work for Linux.
Disclaimer: I'm in the PC retail business.
There are no "Microsoft contracts" up here in Canada, certainly not with the individual shops as that would be a logistical nightmare to administer, even for MS. What does happen is skeevy shop owners like to sell an overpriced OS with every PC, because it's often the only profitable part of the deal on low-end machines. They make up these ominous sounding "contractual obligations", to which the alternative is to buy the PC unassembled with only a 30-day (in-store) warranty rather than the usual 1-to-3 year deal. A lot of customers don't know any better, so they fork over an extra $150-200 for an OEM license of W7HP.
With the big-box brands it's a bit different, because they love the preloading business. They still get paid to put bloatware on your machine - McAfee and MS Office trials - and of course they get a deep "volume" discount on the OS itself. There's still nothing that can legally force them to shove an OS down your throat, but since they don't list a price for an OEM license of the OS, nor many of the core components in the machine, they can argue that it's included in the base price, so there is no point in asking them to remove it since it's "free". They really could sell you a machine without Windows if they so wanted, and for larger corporate purchases you can specify that (or provide your own ghost image), but for the consumer stuff they would much rather sell you a preloaded PC that's ready for the average casual user. Just the support calls alone, from clueless users who bought a naked machine and don't know what to do with it, would be a PR nightmare and a huge cost sink. I've lost count of the times people bought naked machines from me, claiming they didn't need an OS, then returned a day later to buy the damn disc.
Think back a few years, when Dell briefly offered Linux-ready PCs. They cost more than the Windows-loaded versions of the same machines. Now you can run up and down with your conspiracy theories about MS bribes and whatnot, but the reality is that charging a little bit more for the Linux-ready variant ensured that the average Joe Random would buy the cheaper Windows one, even if the difference was only $30 or so, it's sufficient. This, in turn, probably saved them countless frustrating support calls from irate morons. Then a bit later they started preloading Ubuntu on there, to at least have the machine boot to an internet-ready OS.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Because if you RTFA you see that Microsoft is mandating that all manufacturers do this. They mandated this. They know exactly what they are doing
The sad fact is, that microsoft was the great innovator in this space. IBM, who came before them, didn't allow any os but their own to use any hardware they produced, nor did they allow any competition on the hardware side of things. They were like apple's iphone business.
Microsoft is the reason that you can install alternative operating systems in the first place. Everyone else managed to blow themselves up, despite having a really strong opportunity. DR-DOS, Concurrent PC-DOS, CP/M, FreeDOS, PTS-DOS, ROM-DOS, Novell DOS, OpenDOS and I'm not even providing a full list here. Geos, PC/Geos, GeoWorks, MAC/OS, OS/2, Amiga/OS, BeOS, Iris, NextStep, RISC OS, Visi On... Microsoft openly competed with all of them and won, mostly on technical merit. Apple was one of the companies that used the courts to prevent alternative operating systems from becoming possible, and has always been openly hostile to competition. Along with that, Microsoft created the market for hardware innovations (my apologies to any lisp/c64/... machine addicts, but ... even you know what I man). You should give them credit for that, even if that credit mostly belongs to Bill Gates, and little claim can be laid to it by the current microsoft crew.
Microsoft is the canonical example of a company that faced lots and lots of competition and won mostly on technical merits.
Besides, I'm kinda starting to hate this anti-microsoft bashing. It's been years since I've used any form of windows on my own machines, or at work. There is no anti-competition behavior microsoft might be doing of that apple isn't doing 10x worse. Compatibility with iWork ? Just try it. Yet apple is not just forgiven for being anti-freedom, but actually revered for it. "A curated experience is better" and so on. And on apple machines, you really can't install the software you want, because there are actual, technical control measures in place that actually try to prevent it.
In this case, people are afraid of what microsoft *might* at some point, try to do. Great. Microsoft, today, isn't the problem. Apple is the big enemy of software freedom today. Microsoft is mostly becoming less free by imitating apple.
So please, let's shelve this discussion until apple has been broken up into a hardware business entirely separate from the software business. Including on the iPhone front.
The real fun will begin when Microsoft decides to EOL your hardware by not releasing keys for newer versions of Windows, even if the machine has the specs to run it.
Stopping dual boot or changing the OS by users would stop the market penetration by Linux. Maybe the knowledgeable Linux crowd might build their own computers but this is beyond the capacity of probably 99% of computer users. Market penetration by a competing OS would be stopped cold which is what MS wants. They want to stop the downward slide of Windows. Yes, Linux has a very small share of the OS market, but what about some new and different OS that is developed in the future. This would stop them from even starting. It's not just about Linux.