Slashdot Mirror
Australian Users Petitioning Against Windows 8 Secure Boot
In his first accepted submission, lukemartinez sends in an excerpt from a ZDNet article on continuing developments about Microsoft's UEFI secure boot requirements: "The Linux Australia community began petitioning the ACCC this week after Microsoft aired plans to mandate the enabling of Unified Extensible Firmware Interface's secure boot feature for devices bearing the 'Designed for Windows 8' logo. This means that any software or hardware that is to run on the firmware will need to be signed by Microsoft or the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) to be able to execute. This would make it impossible to install alternative operating systems like Linux..."
Delimeter has further information on the petititions, and Matthew Garret recently posted a follow-up to Microsoft's response to the concerns about secure boot, calling them out on their misinformation.
Signed by Microsoft to stop Linux hippies.
Doesn't this only affect OEM stuff, in which case, who cares.
I'm hunting, but I can't seem to find exactly where to sign the petition in any of these links...
I write professional videogame reviews! http://www.digitallydownloaded.net/
This petition and the signers of it just show that they're ignorant of the technology and the implementation of it. Unfortunately you might have government bodies thinking there is no smoke without fire, and making threats about this or that. But truth is this is a manufactured story that really has yet to cause anyone any problems.
Let me ask you this: Who has built a system with a UEFI subsystem which doesn't allow Secure Boot to be disabled by the user? Answer: Nobody.
I'd strongly implore europeans to look at similar moves. The EU courts have proven time again to have backbone when it comes to anti-competitive behaviour in the IT industry, and right now this is Microsoft playing the checkmate card its been threatening for a long long time.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Really though...who buys a vendor PC then slaps Linux on it? We build our PC's..
It seems the main complaint actually is that Microsoft does not require hardware manufacturers to allow users to disable secure boot, but that this is entirely up to the hardware manufacturers. I am not even sure Microsoft would be legally allowed to try to control what manufactureres do outside what is directly related to Windows (they can say that to use Windows logo you must boot this way, they can't tell the manufacturers what to do for other booting scenarios).
Vote with wallet and buy PCs that have the option to disable secure boot.
They probably will not be allowed to sell this shit in the EU due to anti-monopoly rules. An OEM isn't even allowed to charge money for Windows if the customer indicates they want to use something else (but they don't have to put windows on it either). They must offer an version without it (financially. They may put it on there but they can't charge for it), but they don't have to display it.
What's with all this secure boot crap anyway? When did anyone last get a virus, trojan or worm through the boot process and not through say the browser or a rogue piece of software?
Has Symantec or McAfee infiltrated into Microsoft or something?
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
Dear Microsoft,
Please include the requirement for secure boot. I know how to download vmware player to run the things I want to run in a virtual machine and I greatly desire to have a secure underpinning to my OS. Thanks.
Gabe
I do security
Sheesh people, this is a free market. If you don't like it, don't buy it. It's not like these are mandatory government issued computers or something. On top of that, it is still cheaper to build your own machine and be your own Original Equipment Manufacturer.
This is a non-story.
6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
Only if there is no way to disable secure boot.
The problem here is that a majority of users are Windows users that will actually benefit from running a computer with a secure boot loader. So Microsoft is serving the interests of their users by pushing for secure boot.
The good reason to oppose secure boot is the fear that computers will ship locked to Microsoft's keys. Before petitioning the government to specify the terms under which Microsoft can offer a logo program, people should be encouraging Microsoft to add a requirement for a method of disabling secure boot to the logo program (this may well be futile...).
The reason for Microsoft to do this would be to put the whole damn issue behind them, and it only really matters for random consumer hardware that might end up with Linux on it, not a space they face much competition in.
(Server and business vendors will continue to sell their customers what they want, running arbitrary software on such systems will not be problematic)
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
The article lists the hardware manufacturer -- the system builder -- as Microsoft's customer. This is not surprising, since they are the people giving money directly to microsoft.
So like with everything else in life, if you want to have control over something, all you need to do is to pay for it. You're welcomed to purchase your computer from Best Buy, and thus give Best Buy all of the control. Best Buy can choose what you'll get vis-a-vis the security of the OS. Or, you can do what many of us do.
You can purchase Windows 8 directly, and install it yourself. Then you'll be the "hardware manufacturer" (a term that's lost all meaning here), and you'll have complete control over it.
Welcome to the power of money.
I mean that sincerely but Microsoft has already implemented their legal stance, "It is not up to us. It is up to the vendor".
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
and wants to load windows 7?
Some 3th party disk encryption system?
3th party imaging tools?
memtest?
windows xp? (for some old stuff that may only work with it?)
Linux (some business do run linux even if it's in a very limited way)
systems with deep freeze and other 3th party lock down apps.
If even. No OEM is going to want to deal with the legal shit storm that would ensue from not offering an off switch to secure boot. Even if Microsoft bribed them to do it, it wouldn't happen.
Furthermore, if Microsoft did go around bribing OEM's into removing the off switch, governments and other software companies alike would be filing anti-trust lawsuits left and right.
There's nothing to worry about.
..It's the OEM's. Nowhere does Microsoft mandate that OEMs must remove the option to disable UEFI secure boot, only that it's enabled by default.
For someone that's supposedly calling Microsoft out for misinformation, Matthew Garret does a great job of it himself. Here's a few points I noticed:
Which hardware vendors? Who? What hardware? Why? And what has that got to do with Microsoft?
And why shouldn't it? It also doesn't state that you can only ship Microsoft's keys. Why is it Microsoft's responsibility to get keys other than its own installed?
Exactly, however a system that ships with UEFI secure boot and only includes a linux distribution's signing keys will only securely boot that linux distribution. Why is the latter ok, but the former not? Oh wait, because Microsoft is the big, bad buy? Once again - Microsoft doesn't mandate that UEFI secure boot be forced, its the OEM's decision to remove the option to disable it.
Of course, this fails to mention (again) that OEMs are in no way forced to remove UEFI secure boot and by doing so, they'll be at a disadvantage in the marketplace and lose sales from people like this very writer....
In short: Because Nobody else can have secure boot, why should Microsoft get to have it? Apparently that's bad for even the likes of AMD and Intel.
Nevermind that 99.99% of malware targets windows, that most "zombies" on the internet are Windows machines, that most spam is sent from windows machines, which affects everyone. In that instance, giving Windows machines that extra blip of security by default hardly seems like a bad thing.
Woah woah woah! Didn't you just say that Microsoft were the only ones capable of forcing Manufacturers to include their signing keys? That the likes of AMD,
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
Why do people hate progress?
Just a quite thought as I have held my tongue long enough but don't have to the time to argue my point. I would just say please read more about UEFI and it's extensibility properties.
First, secure boot will improve security 10 fold. Especially for non technical users. This will prevent MBR rootkits and other malicious software from targeting initialization software.
Second, Microsoft will have no control over your bootloader, the motherboard manufacturer does. As long as the mobo allows signed drivers by projects like Trusted Grub or Trusted Boot, you will be able to switch out the bootloader. Please seriously read the UEFI documentation as this is getting out of hand and many people appear ignorant.
The Right To Read from 1997:
Dan would eventually find out about the free kernels, even entire free operating systems, that had existed around the turn of the century. But not only were they illegal, like debuggers--you could not install one if you had one, without knowing your computer's root password. And neither the FBI nor Microsoft Support would tell you that.
Not so sensationalist or paranoid now, is it?
-- Insert witty one-liner here. --
I have NEVER seen a BIOS with minimal features.
(The original RedHat complaint was that "MadeForWin8" machines must support UEFI, and must include Microsoft's boot keys; RedHat were worried that BIOS makers would ship with this bare minimum of support, i.e. not allowing you to disable UEFI or to add your own keys.) Disclaimer: I work at MS as a language designer.
So basically, the hardware manufacturers that go for locked secure boot will see drops in sales, I guess. I sure wont buy it if I can't use what I want on it. That's stupid.
...I remember Microsoft's history up to this moment, and remind myself:
1. Convicted monopolist ...and their strategy of...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft [wikipedia.org]
2. Embrace. Extend. Extinguish. ...and then...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish [wikipedia.org]
3. I silently thank every person and organization that advocates, promotes, creates, and helps distribute Open Source, Linux, GNU, OpenOffice, Mozilla, GPL, Apache, FSF, and every non-M$ FOSS alternative I can think of.
Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
If you buy from Best Buy, you bought from a system builder who bought from Microsoft nearly certainly. Ignoring the money they already gave to MS and enabled secure boot by default as well and giving MS *more* money to acquire the *same* software that will also be signed in a way to pass the same secure boot checking is only different in how convoluted the scenario is.
Protesting having this enabled by default is a tad asinine for most desktop users. Demanding that Firmware be mandated to have a configuration setting allowing it to be disabled is reasonable.
There is a crowd of people with a legitimate issue. If you have an unattended mass deployment of non-signed software (e.g. you don't want a 'tech' babysitting any particular system), there is a significant problem. In enterprise system deployment, this could be construed as anti-competitive as MS is the only vendor with the leverage to get their signing keys everywhere.
Overall, however, I think Trusted Boot is a losing game in preventing malware. It means your rootkits have to get bigger and you probably have to build it out of a chain of signed software until you find a weakness, but unless you make the PC fundamentally less usable than it is today, there is going to be a weakness somewhere. For example, if you allow RH signing key and RH just signed grub and then was done with it, suddenly you have a Windows rootkit using grub chainloading malware then Windows.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
That's the side advantage to this security feature. It's a win-win for Microsoft. The cell phone industry has already set a precedent that this is an acceptable practice.
Doesnt Apple allready practice this? Where was the uproar and outrage then?
So even if I can disable Secure Boot, does this mean I have to go into the UEFI and re-enable it each time I boot back to Windows 8?
At best, this is going to be a pain in the ass for people who dual boot.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Someone missed the fact that secure boot is simply a UEFI protocol.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windows-8-PCs-with-UEFI-Secure-Boot-Won-t-Lock-Out-Other-Platforms-223377.shtml
Yay for fear-mongering panic!
As I understand it, a manufacturer could choose to include certificates for Windows Vista and Windows 7 and to write off the 0.5% edge case as an acceptable loss of market share. People who need Windows XP can still run it in Windows 7 Pro's XP mode.
Steve? Is that you?
You know we've told you being careful before.
yours sincerely
Microsoft Legal Department
PS : thanks for the fruit basket. The Mangos really cheered up my wife.
While this may have little impact on the (large) US market, Australians might be in for a major jump in their (smaller) PC business. If they mandate an end user accessible UEFI 'switch', they'll grab a large part of the mail order PC business supporting alternate operating systems.
If they can differentiate themselves from the rest of the world markets (OK, they probably won't be the only country passing such a law), they could potentially turn themselves into a key player in s/w development for advanced systems, servers, etc. Combine that with their proximity to the world's primary h/w producers (China, Taiwan, Singapore) and their English language and they have the opportunity to take a big step ahead of everyone else.
If the Aussie Linux users are smart, this is the way they'll pitch this to their legislature.
Have gnu, will travel.
No, you build it yourself
That works if you want a desktop PC, but how many end users actually build their own laptops?
I'll sign this on one condition: That when non-secureboot PCs get rootkitted and the secureboot versions are safe, that I get to punch the face in of every retard that complains about M$$$ writing shit software yet again.
FUCK MICROSOFT FOR WANTING TO SECURE MY BOOT PROCESS
FUCK MICROSOFT COS MY PC HAS A ROOTKIT
For a site supposedly populated by techies, slashdot sure does hate progress.
Here's what I don't like about "secure boot" (from this article): "...The end user is not guaranteed that their system will include the signing keys that would be required for them to swap their graphics card for one from another vendor ..."
So, given that major OEM's tend to ship as minimal as possible BIOS/UEFI options: If you buy a Dell computer and cannot turn off secure boot, are you limited by hardware signing to Dell branded (and priced) graphics cards and etc?
Shh.
And what if the binaries are not signed in the correct manner for UEFI? Its not just a case of there needing to be keys, but the signing mechanism also needs to be supported - and I'm doubtful as to whether or not XPs entire boot chain is even signed.
And by saying that Windows XP users can run it in Windows 7s XP mode, you just forced another purchase on them...
No, OEMs are going to accommodate these users - thats pretty much guaranteed.
As for point 1: The incoming George W. Bush administration pretty much dropped the charges. I imagine that the incoming Romney or Perry administration will likely do the same.
"Most of the hardware in existence right now" will stop being manufactured if Microsoft has its way. PC makers won't find it profitable to keep separate SKUs for the fewer than 1 percent of users who run desktop Linux. Used hardware will eventually break without an easy way of finding working replacement parts.
To be fair [a 3-position hardware jumper setting] would be two jumpers, since you don't seem to understand how jumpers work.
How would that be? One jumper with three pairs of pins has three settings. Look at any old parallel ATA drive and see the jumper for main drive, second drive, or cable select. Likewise, a motherboard would have three pairs of pins, one each for boot insecurely, boot securely, and manage keys.
Why is Microsoft's legal department giving advice to Steve Jobs?
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
>> Let me ask you this: Who has built a system with a UEFI subsystem which doesn't allow Secure Boot to be disabled by the user? Answer: Nobody.
Apple. Any ipod or i-telephone is a nice example of this
They have an UEFI firmware that cannot be disabled.
To install an alternative OS (rockbox or linux for example), or even an unsigned executable, you have to crack it via a design flaw.
These computer manufacturers are not allowed to rule which code WE can run with the HW we purchased ! It's purely illegal.
This will also happen on win8. It will allow only MS signed executables, at least on the tablet GUI.
The PC will be unable to dual boot (or you have to change a bios setting each time!)
If you think that the Linux server market is not big enough to get vendor support, I don't know what to tell you.
Servers will. Laptops won't.
Go after the manufacturers. Just make it so that if someone sells someone else a computer without the new owner getting all the keys, let that be prosecutable as fraud or some variant of all the crazy anti-hacking laws.
If I had to guess, I'd say it's such a shocking and overtly demonstration of dealing in bad faith, that it's probably already illegal in most countries if we look at the books hard enough. For that reason alone, I think we almost ought to thanking Microsoft for finally pressing the issue hard enough that we finally really have to deal with this festering cancer that the industry has been dripping onto everyone.
If Dell sells you an x86 box (or Apple sells you a tiny ARM box, or Sony sells you a Cell box) and doesn't include the master keys or doesn't let you manage what signed code is authorized and what isn't, that's
This has nothing to do with Microsoft specifically, except as an expansion of the whole XBox bullshit. (And by all means, burn Microsoft to an unrecognizable cinder for that.) Code-signing isn't evil; code-signing in defiance of the owner for purposes of limiting what a computer's owner is allowed to make a computer do, is what's evil. Go after the inexcusably deliberately crippled firmware (i.e. malware) which doesn't put the right party in charge of key management, not Windows. (There are so many reasons to hate Windows, but this is not one of them.)
As for the problems/inconveniences grub2 has with distributing and installing signed binaries, even when the user (the party GPL3 tries to protect) has ultimate authority, I'm sorry but that's a GPL3 problem. It can be handled, so don't panic over that. At worst we all go back to GPL2ed grub1, boo hoo. That one thing is no reason to kill the idea of code-signing.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Ballmer, not Jobs.
applications publishers and others are not always on board with security strategies
That's because for a lot of students and hobbyists, "security strategies" that require three figures USD a year to keep a certificate current are cost prohibitive. A lot of Authenticode CAs don't even sell certificates to individuals.
Oh, I thought is must have been Jobs, seeing as he is the one that destroyed Linux on the desktop/laptop.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
In my opinion W would be a discussion for somewhere like The Daily Show, or Colbert Report, and not /.
Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
"Windows 8 competes with Windows 7 and they have to allow users to upgrade with an old PC. It would be stupid to implement an OS that requires a Secure Boot mode, because it would mean that mean that users would have to buy new hardware."
First off, you forget that secure boot requires the hardware and the OS to work together. You have to have the secure boot feature as an integral part of your motherboard. At the moment, I think there is not any such hardware. So here is the question... How do you get Win 8 secure boot to work on older (present) computers? Answer, you don't! The upgrade version of Win 8 will not have secure boot working. It's only future computers that would have a version of Win 8 with a working secure boot.
And so good news. More will start to assemble their own laptops. What's wrong with that?
The fact that I haven't been made aware of any sort of standardized design for laptop cases to accept interchangeable motherboards, unlike ATX on desktops.
Microsoft have a dominant position in the desktop operating system market.
Why is it Microsoft's responsibility to get keys other than its own installed?
It is, for the same reason MS was forced to offer some choice for the Internet browser in Europe, remember ?
Oh wait, because Microsoft is the big, bad guy?
Big guy: yes, again we are talking about dominant position and its consequences, which lead to more power and possible abuses, thus the bad guy. Don't you remember some MS abuses?
Here's a few points I noticed: [...]
Add to those points: the dominant position of Microsoft. It should help a lot to understand Garrett's answer
I'm sure the signed Windows 8 boot loader will be happy to load older, unsigned Microsoft OSes.
They hate on Microsoft for not improving security, now Microsoft makes a move they call it BS and a call it something against linux. Excuse me, I think they missed the official blog post from Microsoft about this.
Also, Microsoft does not mandate the OEM to lockdown secure boot, they can disable it at anytime if they want to. Plus, OEMs can actually load and "certify" certain linux OS so that these linux OS can also utilize secure boot. I think these people filing a law suit are not really knowledgeable people about the matter at hand.
Who actually cares about those logos anyway?
MicroSoft: Sure Mr. motherboard manufacturer, you can include our keys in your bios for $10. Charge the user $20. We make an extra ten; you make an extra ten; wink, wink.
I tried Google build your own laptop, but I didn't find the "three instructions" you mentioned. The closest I found to "six appropriate components" was this tutorial mentioning a "barebook", a bundle of a motherboard, case, screen, keyboard, and trackpad. One problem with buying a barebook and matching parts, or with mail ordering any laptop for that matter, is that you don't get to try the screen, keyboard, and trackpad before you commit to buying it. But it's worse with barebooks because most brick-and-mortar stores that I've been in don't appear to sell barebooks and thus don't have any completed floor models on display.
Hell, it took literally years and a bunch of lawsuits to buy a whitebox PC without Microsoft getting paid for the OS even if you didn't want it and weren't going to use it
That is not true. As far back as 16-bit 286 systems run DOS I recall being able to go to the local clone shop and buy a system without Windows or a "Microsoft tax". And later when Windows came out I was able to buy a system with WIndows or Office. The situation you describe was only true if you were buying a Dell, HP, IBM, or some other major vendor. Alternative independent vendors existed.
If Microsoft had mandated that the manufacturers also provide a means for other operating systems to be bootable, even those without keys, when done under user control (UEFI option menus to import new keys, disable/delete keys, and even turn off key checking for specific devices and/or specific time frames), then perhaps we'd all be happy and even praising Microsoft. Instead, certain hackers will be motivated to figure out how to rootkit the UEFI code. Although they will enjoy wide community support to do that, once it is done, it creates a whole new danger. The risk of malware controlling the boot process will return. But this will happen under the guise of a false belief that Microsoft took steps to make computers running Windows be more secure. So basically, in the end, security will be no better, and technically worse because it is faux security, and all because of a decision by MIcrosoft to push their product under the guise of pushing security.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Citation required. The razor-thin margin OEMs rely on their suppliers to be even more razor-thin, meaning: do just enough to sell that which only runs the 800-pound gorilla in the OS room, and nothing more, as they 1) can't really afford it and 2) can't afford to piss off Ballmer.
We are talking ever changing, low-level, damn near no-name component makers that do ten sketchy things every morning before the first coffee break.
I need a way to subvert this whole scheme so new machines I purchase would only have keys for OSS software, preventing Windows malware from booting. Now that would be worth pushing the H/W vendors for!
Secure boot can use a hardware module, but can also do things using the network stack built into UEFI to fetch and verify keys pre-boot. A UEFI implementation on top of coreboot could implement a secureboot mode.
Seems every time a new Windows starts kicking around, Slashdot has to start seeking out FUD articles to post to try and stir people up. The one I remember the best was Gutmann's article on how Vista wouldn't let users record or play their own audio content in HD because of DRM. I read this particular peice not long after fiddling around with Cakewalk Sonar in Vista, and using it to mess with 24-bit, 192kHz audio. It was an article riddled with speculation and misinformation, yet it got posted here and quoted as truth many times.
Same shit here. People are digging for anything to make Windows 8 look bad, without regard to how truthful it is. They aren't trying to find legitimate criticisms, they are just spreading FUD.
Really? Because right now Microsoft is trying VERY hard to get people OFF Windows XP.
This is from the article itself:
"Windows 8 certification does not require that the user be able to disable UEFI secure boot, and we've already been informed by hardware vendors that some hardware will not have this option."
From which they conclude:
"The end user is no longer in control of their PC."
So they admit that some hardware vendors are considering not offering the user the option to turn this off, then overextend that to conclude all users have lost control of their PC if they buy one with Windows 8 on it, which Microsoft is "misusing to gain tighter control over the market."
To be clear: Microsoft does not require that the user not be given the option to disable Secure Boot. The decision is up to the hardware vendor. These hardware vendors sell the same motherboards to a lot of places, some running Windows some running Linux. They have little incentive to remove a Secure Boot option.
Talk about making a big issue out of nothing. Find something else to get angry about people, like US law viewing corporations as people.
First - Microsoft says "The OEMs have to ship with secure boot enabled, but we don't tell them they have to let the user disable secure boot - that is up to them". But think what would it mean if the user could not disable secure boot or add new keys for the OS of their choice? Who would benefit? Seems to me Microsoft would benefit greatly if the user were locked in to a Microsoft OS. They would benefit because their rival, Linux, would no longer be installable on a great many machines.
If the OEM allow the disabling of secure boot, Microsoft wins over Linux again -- " Why would you want to run that OS - It is not secure. We are. " To those who run Linux at home it might not be a big deal, but I would hate to be the guy explaining to his boss why they are using a less secure system when they had been attacked.
Will OEMs care about all our (Linux users) bluster - sure we can boycott any machine that locks secure boot, and has no provision for adding keys but how big is the Linux installed base compared to the Windows installed base. Why would an OEM add a few extra cents worth of parts to be able to cater to a small market segment? A few cents adds up over hundreds of thousands of motherboards built over the life of a design.
In a limited way?
Most big businesses (including federal, dod, va, etc) have MANY Linux servers running everything in the server rooms. Maybe not as many on the desktops, but certainly Linux has a huge presence in the server room. Most places I work with and have worked with in the past, since Sun's demise...all have mostly Linux running....with some other *nixes...like HPUX, AIX...etc.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
What about Google/Amazon/cloud providers? I seem to remember that they buy quite a lot of computers. How are they going to cope with inability to boot non-Windows OS?
I imagine the ACCC will just force sellers in Australia to provide a method and instructions for changing the OS. Just like they've made DVD sellers provide methods and instructions for playing DVDs from any region. The ACCC made region encoding illegal in Australia. Possibly it's the case everywhere in the world, but whenever I've bought a DVD player in Australia the seller has provided instructions for changing regions (including region 0).
Wait, you don't think it's fair that a person -- not unlike yourself -- who owns an assembly business, should be able to attempt to sell whatever they choose? You think someone else's private business should be forced to sell what you want to buy?
The problem is that it's not the manufacturers that *want* to do this. If so, they could have done more by now. They've done the bare minimum that MS demands. It is not in their interest to potentially restrict OS choice, and the anti-rootkit benefits are dubious (unless *maybe* if you lock down only to MS). The problem is measures like this have a large potential to be very anti-competitive, which may be a lost cause since being a convicted monopolist hasn't really slowed them down in the least.
Used to be, you could purchase a computer with no OS at all. Now, the law says that it's illegal to do so.
Show me this alleged law. I can tell you already that you cannot, because you can buy tower systems all day long without an OS from IBM, Dell, and HP. Generally complete Desktop and laptop vendors don't dare to sell bare-bones systems because of market forces and logistics.
Otherwise, Best Buy would be selling computers without OS's,
WTF are you smoking there? Best Buy won't touch *anything* that could possibly 'confuse' or 'intimidate' a random person off the street.
But you (the greater you) yelled and screamed about a decade ago, forcing Best Buy to only sell computers with an OS.
I do not recall *anyone* (apart from Microsoft themselves) begging any government to forbid bare bones systems...
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
turn Secure Boot off?
Add a better bios. UEFI secure boot requirement can be one of two bios installed. The other default will be another bios for other than Microsoft future stuff.
The UEFI can checksum the alternate bios and if there is a trojan in the latter, could be arranged to provide a warning, or take other action.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
A total lack of standards on the laptop building topic aside, this would make all computers bundled with Windows totally useless. Fine! That will push even MORE users over to building their own computers, something which will always be cheaper anyway.
Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
When making your complaint, rather than sounding like a moron ("I hate M$ cos they suck balls"), try referring to possible non-compliance with the instrument that is within the ACCC's mandate to enforce. Here are some notes from my 15 minute foray into the Act.
Competition and Consumer Act 2010
Unconscionable conduct (general protections, volume 3, chapeter 2, part 2-2, section 21)
Microsoft's past anticompetitive practices serve as a valid evidence for the requirement of subsection 4(a).
Mirosoft is indirectly coercing the purchase of Windows 8 computers due to the possibility of lack of availability of an alternative by pressuring the OEM and hardware vendors (specific protections, chapter 3, part 3-1, division 5, section 50, subsection 1(a))
Threat of tampering as a result of accusations by Microsoft of conduct untoward them (remote activation of a disabling mechanism) in violation of specific protections under volume 3, chapter 3, part 3-2, division 1, subdivision A, section 52.
TVs (SDTVs that is) had terrible resolution, giving at best 40x25 (320x200)
When displaying lots of text. I guess one problem is that people thought displaying lots of text was the only thing a computer could do.
Only the low end of the computing market at the time used TVs as their monitors, and that was done as a cost saving measure, not a technical prowess feature.
Then I guess making presentations on a monitor large enough for everyone in the room to see wasn't considered a valid use back then. How exactly did tools such as PowerPoint take off?
Even Apple didn't use TVs as their monitors
The Macintosh didn't have TV output, but the Apple IIGS had both 240p-class RGB output (for its dedicated monitor) and SDTV output (for TVs and Apple IIe composite monitors).
Take for example the Atari ST which could do 640x480 resolution with 64k colors, which simply wasn't possible on a TV.
I'll grant you the "640 wide" part isn't possible in a composite signal; luma in NTSC is filtered down to about 320 pixels' worth of bandwidth. But if the "480 tall" part isn't possible, then why do they call SDTV "480i"?