Will Secure Boot Cripple Linux Compatibility?

MojoMax writes "The advent of Windows 8 is drawing ever nearer and recently we have learned that ARM devices installed with Windows 8 will not be able to disable the UEFI secure boot feature that many of us are deeply concerned about. However, UEFI is still a very real danger to Linux and the freedom to use whichever OS you chose. Regardless of information for OEMs to enable customers to install their own keys, such as that published by the Linux Foundation, there are still very serious and as yet unresolved issues with using secure boot and Linux. These issues are best summarized quoting Matthew Garrett: 'Signing the kernel isn't enough. Signed Linux kernels must refuse to load any unsigned kernel modules. Virtualbox on Linux? Dead. Nvidia binary driver on Linux? Dead. All out of tree kernel modules? Utterly, utterly dead. Building an updated driver locally? Not going to happen. That's going to make some people fairly unhappy.'"

Comments

Organized trolling campaign on Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

GreatBunzinni has been posting anonymous accusations listing a whole bunch of Slashdot accounts as being part of a marketing campaign for Microsoft, without any evidence. GreatBunzinni has accidentally outed himself as this anonymous poster. Half the accounts he attacks don't even post pro-Microsoft rhetoric. The one thing they appear to have in common is that they have been critical of Google in the past. GreatBunzinni has been using multiple accounts to post these "shill" accusations, such as Galestar, NicknameOne, and flurp.

That's not the problem. The problem is that moderators gave him +5 Informative and are now modding down the accused, even for legitimate posts. Metamoderation is supposed to address this by filtering out the bad moderators, but clearly it's not working.

This "shill" crap that has been flying around lately has to stop. It's restricting a variety of viewpoints from participating on the site and creating an echo chamber.

Re:Organized trolling campaign on Slashdot

[Tsingi]

Oh fuck off.

Re:Organized trolling campaign on Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, gee, what do you know. A subscribed account anonymously posing a pro-active defense of Bonce, followed by Bonch's own weak sauce post advocating for Microsoft, despite Microsoft's untenable position.

Well... I guess that Bonch is at least making his 30 pieces of silver as a SHILL.

Re:Organized trolling campaign on Slashdot

[bonch]

How am I advocating for Microsoft by asking if there will be preinstalled Linux tablets? Dumb.

Re:Organized trolling campaign on Slashdot

[jo_ham]

I see you remembered to check the "post anonymously" option this time GreatBunzinni!

How's that going?

Re:Organized trolling campaign on Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides, bonch friend. Bonch special friend. Bonch writes about Hollywood Paymasters not willing to pay Obama and the Democrats anymore. This is good.

Re:Organized trolling campaign on Slashdot

[hairyfeet]

Don't feel bad bonch, I got accused of shilling for saying IE is shit. I still haven't figured out how saying something is shit is a positive endorsement for it, maybe its rapper lingo or something, hell if I know.

As for TFA watch how quickly i get modded down by FOSS zealots and their giant perceptual bubble, ready? Hey FOSSies, its just MSFT copying Apple again, so quit getting your panties in a wad, okay? you can't put anything on an iPad but iOS and this is THE EXACT SAME DEAL. There will be NO CHANGE when it comes to X86, in fact part of the "designed for Windows 8" specs state that they MUST allow the secure boot to be disabled, the only place its different is the ARM chips which as many have pointed out will probably be heavily subsidized by MSFT who don't want "Hey turn that $299 Windows 8 tablet into a $500 Android tablet!" posts all over the net 3 weeks after it comes out.

And I know this will piss you off, get ready for it....DON'T BUY IT...is that REALLY so hard? why the hell is it any business of yours what MSFT does with chips they contracted out for, or with OEMs they are paying to build their designs? it isn't like you don't have more choices than EVER before, you've got Apple, Google, RIM,, there is X86/64, ARM,MIPS, hell you got choices coming out your asses, so WTF are you bitching for? Vote with your wallet okay? But just because YOU don't like doesn't mean you get to tell ME or anyone else what device we should buy or what features it should have. If I was gonna buy one of these things, which I'm not BTW, I wanna try one of those $70 Android Indian pads the net has been buzzing about, but if I did and was actually gonna use this for real work I'd WANT it locked down, because if its one thing we've seen its that these things are giant targets for the malware guys! look at Android it seems like every other day we are reading of some exploit.

But in the end you have not a damned thing to bitch about in mobile. Android is switching between first and second place constantly, there are a bazillion different hacked droid ROMs out there you can play with, life is good man so why get your panties in a wad for a device you would NEVER buy in a million years anyway? And if you are buying Windows devices to get the trialware price breaks and then loading Linux YOU are a damned hypocrite and part of the problem, as there are many guys like System76 busting their asses trying to support you and if you don't buy from them and support Linux then you're just being assholes and have NO right to complain about the numbers showing Windows share being so high because you are part of those numbers!

But now you have no excuses, you can buy damned near any device you want running Linux, so vote with your wallet and let everyone else vote with theirs, okay? if the world likes what you have it'll win, if not then that simply means you aren't listening to the people and giving them what they want, simple as that. But bitching about Win 8 ARM not letting you boot Linux when most of you wouldn't piss on a Win 8 anything is just bitching for the sake of being a bitch and more than a little pointless, okay? Nobody is taking anything "away" from you if you would have never bought it in the first place, and ARM chips are about as different from x86 as night is to day, with ARM everything is custom chips whereas x86 will run any old thing. If you want freedom? you've got the droid, have fun, I'll be joining you when those $70 Droid tablets hit just for shits and giggles. But when MSFT is paying for a device let them design it however they wish.

Re:Organized trolling campaign on Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

I got accused of shilling

So did bonch.

Organized Trolling Campaign crap flood: This "shill" crap that has been flying around lately has to stop.
bonch: The "shill" accusations flying around on Slashdot lately are getting out of control.

Overly Critical Guy: This isn't bonch
Overly Critical Guy: This is not bonch.... Signed, NOT bonch

"NOT bonch"? Ha ha. BUSTED!

bonch: Seamless experiences win out in the long term. We saw this when gaming moved from PCs to consoles in the 2000s, and it's happening now in the transition to the post-PC era.
Overly Critical Guy: Seamless experiences always win out over time. We saw it when gaming shifted from PCs to consoles, and now the industry is shifting from desktops to mobile devices.

Overly Critical Guy: Android phones used to look like this [imgur.com]
bonch: Android used to look like this [imgur.com]

Overly Critical Guy: The keyboard looks exactly like Apple's flat keyboard, and the trackpad is the Magic Trackpad that Apple started offering a year or so ago
bonch: The keyboard looks just like Apple's flat keyboard introduced a few years ago, the trackpad is a clone of the Apple Trackpad.

bonch: A Slashdot employee recently told me that my comments generate more moderations than any he's ever seen.
(yes, that is what happens when you mod your own posts up from multiple accounts then everyone else mods them down)

Re:Organized trolling campaign on Slashdot

[shentino]

Give the guy a break.

He already sold his soul, that silver is all he has left to live on.

Re:Organized trolling campaign on Slashdot

[GreatBunzinni]

You are pathetic. You can't risk the karma of your precious Bonch/SharkLaser/Overly Critical Guy user accounts, which you need to pull your PR crap of a job astroturfing slashdot, so you resort to ridiculous personal attacks through an AC to see if I get modbombed.

And all this to try to get some revenge for me pointing out the obvious: that all those accounts are controlled by the same person/organization, which I've made here and here.

But it appeas that what got you rilled up was my post where I point out that the bonch/SharkLaser/Overly Critical Guy accounts are used to manipulate discussions.

But as it appears you are enjoying it, I'll repeat what I've said before: The Overly Critical Guy account and bonch accounts are continously used to push the same propaganda points, to the point that they are even used post messages based on the same script. See this post from Overly Critical Guy and compare it to this post by bonch. Notice the similarities pointed out in this post.

And the best part, you don't even realize that your recent full-fledged persecution on me and coordenated modbombing campaign, even in discussions where aforementioned your shill accounts have been used to post, is a clear sign that I stuck a nerve in calling out your coordinated astroturfing and manipulation campaign.

So keep up the trolling, whether you post through your Bonch/SharkLaser/Overly Critical Guy accounts or through AC. The more you cringe, the more people will be aware of how your organization have been engaged in manipulating slashdot users.

Re:Organized trolling campaign on Slashdot

[GreatBunzinni]

I am not accusing the bonch/Overly Critical Guy/SharkLaser user accounts of being shills just because they are engaged in a system to manipulate PR favourable to Microsoft. It's a bit more blatant than that.

These bonch/Overly Critical Guy accounts are patently engaged in a cooperative effort to push MS propaganda and astroturf slashdot because they have been repeatedly caught posting from the same script, as pointed out in this post and in this post. They screwed up and now they were outed, and now they are persecuting me for pointing out the obvious in a previouis discussion.

Re:Organized trolling campaign on Slashdot

[Microlith]

Hey FOSSies, its just MSFT copying Apple again, so quit getting your panties in a wad, okay?

Yup, we should just STFU and let the two biggest companies in consumer computing shut down all but each other as options in the market.

There will be NO CHANGE when it comes to X86, in fact part of the "designed for Windows 8" specs state that they MUST allow the secure boot to be disabled

But none of how that works is defined, so chances are each vendor will have a different way of doing it and when that happens, the likelihood of automating the process goes way down (if it was ever possible) and the barriers to entry go way, way up.

heavily subsidized by MSFT who don't want "Hey turn that $299 Windows 8 tablet into a $500 Android tablet!" posts all over the net 3 weeks after it comes out.

Of course not. They want to undercut Android and drive it out of the market. Prices will probably jump back up (but the security won't be relaxed) if they succeed.

And I know this will piss you off, get ready for it....DON'T BUY IT...is that REALLY so hard?

If Microsoft succeeds in their obvious goal of eliminating all other choices aside from Apple, nope, it won't be. Because there will be no choice.

so WTF are you bitching for?

Because a company with a powerful monopoly known for acting in anti-competitive manners is establishing requirements that make it extremely difficult, and in some cases impossible, for alternative software platforms to be used on these devices.

if I did and was actually gonna use this for real work I'd WANT it locked down

Sure, sure. I would too. But that's not what this hardware is being set up for. It's designed to keep a lid on you just as much as anything else.

why get your panties in a wad for a device you would NEVER buy in a million years anyway?

Well I won't knowing that it's been deliberately crippled. I do buy "designed for windows N" hardware now because until this point it didn't guarantee that I would be locked out or forced to perform contortions to put whatever OS I wanted on it.

there are many guys like System76 busting their asses trying to support you and if you don't buy from them and support Linux then you're just being assholes

They make nice large laptops, no tablets or cellphones. But yeah, I can't wait until my choice in hardware is reduced to a tiny handful of companies because Microsoft has manipulated the rest of it into being exclusive to them. That's fucked up and BROKEN.

But bitching about Win 8 ARM not letting you boot Linux when most of you wouldn't piss on a Win 8 anything is just bitching for the sake of being a bitch and more than a little pointless, okay

Gimme a fucking break. I'd buy a Windows 8 device... if it would let me do as I wished up to and including replacing Windows 8. But now I know that since I can't, no I won't. And I'll bitch that choices are being deliberately limited by an anti-competitive monopolist. To ignore the moves being made here is foolish in the extreme.

FIGHT HARD, O WHITE KNIGHT! MICROSOFT SHALL SURELY REWARD YE IN THE END!

Re:Organized trolling campaign on Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

OH, HORROR, MICROSOFT IS TRYING TO DESTROY ITS COMPETITORS LIKE EVERY SINGLE OTHER COMPANY IN EXISTENCE, INCLUDING GOOGLE!

Jesus Christ. You literally quoted that post sentence by sentence, making it one of the most obnoxious replies to parse ever. Just because you're still nerd raging over "Micro$oft" because they bundled IE twenty years ago doesn't mean your FREEEEEDOMM is going to get taken away just because some tablets will ship with Windows 8.

I find it absolutely hilarious how people are all about choice and competition when it comes to Android devices but are suddenly in opposition to other companies competing with Android with their own devices. You're just a neckbearded fanboy. You have sided with Android, and you don't like anything that competes with it.

Re:Organized trolling campaign on Slashdot

[forkfail]

Competes != makes it impossible to exist.

As does putting draconian demands on the OEM's.

Competes means you ship a better product that wins on its own merits.

What we're seeing here is abuse of monopolistic powers.

It may have started with IE, but it's happened again and again since.

PS: Android may be a platform, but it is hardly monolithic like Microsoft is. Lots of independent OEMs, and more importantly, lots of competing vendor/providers. Very different model than MS.

Re:Organized trolling campaign on Slashdot

[WorBlux]

hell you got choices coming out your asses, so WTF are you bitching for? Vote with your wallet okay? But just because YOU don't like doesn't mean you get to tell ME or anyone else what device we should buy or what features it should have. If I was gonna buy one of these things, which I'm not BTW, I wanna try one of those $70 Android Indian pads the net has been buzzing about, but if I did and was actually gonna use this for real work I'd WANT it locked down, because if its one thing we've seen its that these things are giant targets for the malware guys!

First it's a matter of culture, which does and can effect every one of us. A culture where corporation control what you can or can't do with a computer is a culture detrimental to everyone. Second who has the keys? Locking your stuff up as long as you have a key is not problematic at all. What is is when the key is controlled solely by someone who is willing to sacrifice your interests and goals for the sake of their own.

Re:Organized trolling campaign on Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha. Nobody thinks you're a shill APK, you're just a pathetic unabashed fanbot drone.

Re:Organized trolling campaign on Slashdot

[hairyfeet]

Well you sir are coming off as a bit of a loonie and more than a little stalkerish, is that REALLY how you wish to be seen? its not like we aren't grown ups here and can judge for ourselves what is bullshit and what's not, marketing bullshit is pretty easy to spot BTW as they always fall for "buzzword bingo" like synergy or in the example you keep posting "seamless experience' which if that doesn't just scream marketing bullshit i don't know what does.

But you see the problem with guys like you is you encourage the REALLY batshit to take up you claims, such as my own personal stalker whose been following me a couple of months now. he posted in this thread BTW, not once but twice counting AC posting, see if you can spot him. he is convinced that I'm actually a "M$ Ninja" secretly hidden in a "warroom" in Redmond, which is extra funny since i've never been west of OKC, and that I "have a file on him" and an "Agenda to destroy FOSS and freedom' along with kill kittens or something, who can understand the truly batshit. Now he has it in my head I'm old Pete, aka APK, even though old Pete and i had a pretty nasty row last year until we finally agreed to disagree and we still frankly can't agree on shit, but old APK pointed out one of his "Linux magically protects you from viruses' posts was bullshit so now he MUST be me.

So you see friend, pointing out bullshit once is fine, following them around? make YOU look like the douchebag. Don't worry friend with phrases like seamless experience it isn't like he isn't as easy to spot as Bozo at an Amish wake, his own language trips him up. but when you stalk like that you embolden the REAL nutjobs that are frankly killing /. like a cancer, the ones that treat OSes like religions and anyone who doesn't parrot the party line as heretics. The shills? We can deal with them easy enough, like I said their own love of buzzword bingo gives them away, but its the crazies that are frankly ruining the site for everybody as nobody can have a simple discussion about any subject with militant fanbois and perception bubbles. BTW don't label me a shill for using perception bubble, I prefer to use blatant circlejerk but I was told perception bubble was nicer and i'm trying to be more sophisticated in my phrases and shit, kay? But do you REALLY want to see this site become another Kuroshin, where nothing but trolls and crazies hang anymore because the loonies ran everyone else off? Shilling by ANY group is easy enough to ignore, but the crazy flag waving and perception bubble simply ruins any chance at a dialog and makes it pointless to continue

. Its like the difference between someone handing you a flier for some company and someone jumping in your face and yelling '"fuck you muthafucker!", one is easy to simply ignore while the other one turns posts into endless dick waving. Hell look at the posts below you friend, how quickly they went from having constructive arguments to being the equivalent of Halo teabagging. all civility went right out the window, all the militant dick wavers saw you as a "fellow traveler' and joined in, nothing really more can be posted because the civility is gone and everyone moved on. IS that REALLY what you wanted to accomplish? i hope not, but that was the result.

Re:Organized trolling campaign on Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Obvious shill is obvious

Re:Organized trolling campaign on Slashdot

[Guignol]

No, a hell if I know is the offspring of an elephant and a rhyno. only shills pretend to ignore this fact because it doesn't suit their shilling agenda

Re:Organized trolling campaign on Slashdot

[cupantae]

Vote with your wallet

This is one of the most odious, repeatedly parroted phrases I know. Let me explain why:

First of all, it is a direct statement that those with money should be those who make all the decisions. This has obvious inherent flaws. But I imagine you are not one of the super-rich. All the same, you obviously only say this because you are on the side of the majority. My issue with your enraged (and heavily capitalised) post is that you imply that unnecessary limitations are OK if they don't affect most people, and that the rest of us should shut up about it. How is that possibly the case? Just because Microsoft have the resources to sponsor companies to close down their devices doesn't mean they should be allowed to. You may have heard of court cases against MS along these lines.

On the Apple note, the difference is that they make all their product in-house, and so there's no fear of their OS becoming the only compatible one in the industry. However, of course I object to their efforts to make the iPod (etc.) incompatible with other software than iTunes. I don't see why I wouldn't object to it.

Re:Organized trolling campaign on Slashdot

[JasterBobaMereel]

Apple are a hardware company, who make devices that come with software

Microsoft are a software company, who make software that runs on generic hardware

Android is an OS that many companies use on varied hardware, including some that also run MS software

Linux is an OS usually with a vast suite of software that many companies and individuals use on generic hardware most of which can also run MS Software

These are four different entities, that are not directly comparable, or in many cases even competing, they all overlap each others markets to some extent

Every time I see a x vs y comparison I am amazed at the conditional statements needed to make even a vaguely reasonable comparison

Re:Organized trolling campaign on Slashdot

[hairyfeet]

Uhh...to use a phrase popular in these parts 'I don't actually have a horse in this race' as i'm happy with my dumbphone and netbook, which BTW said netbook came with not only Windows 7 but also an instant on Linux environment called Expressgate which is one of the reasons I bought it, so i'm not "for" or "against" anybody here and the automatic assuming that I am just lets everyone know you DO have a horse in the race and are one of those "everyone go to hell but cave 76!" types that treat corps like ballclubs.

As for voting with your wallet it doesn't have a damned thing to do with "uberrich" and if it did the only purses you'd see in stores would be Prada and there sure as hell wouldn't be a line of Snooki zebraskin bags in every damned store. No voting with your wallet is VERY democratic and that is probably why FOSS zealots hate it so, because they have yet to make an OS people actually want. lets take Google Android for instance, which only came about because google took it AWAY from the fiddly CLI happy community and used the kernel to make an ALL GUI all the time OS that is based around an app market kinda like...well Apple obviously. if it had a damned thing to do with uberrich how do you explain MSFT being dead last hmmm? They have thrown obscene amounts of money at WinMo and WinPhone and now Win 8 ARM yet people voted with their wallets and you can't give the things away, why? Because people LIKE Android and iOS that's why! they like the features, the like the GUI, they like the form factor, its all decided by people voting with their wallets.

but the fact that you think people shouldn't be able to choose just shows you to be an elitist, thinking the public is "sheeple" that you oh wise one should be able to decide for. Well i got news for you pal, just as MSFT found out with Vista, WinMo, and I'm betting WinPhone and WinARM and Apple is gonna find out if they don't come up with something truly kick ass soon the public is more than willing to dump your ass if you don't have what they want. Its no different than how you can't find a single retailer in America stocking Linux boxes on shelves or how MSFT is dead last in phones, you give the people what they want or they walk away, simple as that. But you thinking the rich can magically decide for the masses just shows how out of touch you are with the average consumer because frankly nothing could be further from the truth, for an example look at how Intel is pushing "ultrabooks" yet the local Walmarts and Staples are packed to the brim with AMD netbooks and laptops that are frankly selling like hotcakes. the corps can say "thin is in" all they want but if the public doesn't want the unit or doesn't think its worth the price its just gonna sit there gathering dust.

"Freedom"

[bonch]

Would someone interested in Linux on these particular tablets be able to order one from a vendor with Linux (or no operating system) pre-installed? I couldn't find information on whether or not OEMs are restricted from selling pre-installed Linux versions of the tablet. The SoftwareFreedom website says "any ARM device that ships with Windows 8 will never run another operating system, unless it is signed with a preloaded key or a security exploit is found that enables users to circumvent secure boot." The phrase there is "ships with Windows 8," which suggests to me that Custom Boot-enabled versions could ship without Windows. Admittedly, I have a hard time seeing it as a freedom issue, as these are just tech gadgets at the end of the day. I'd rather it was framed as an inconvenience argument, not a freedom one.

Re:"Freedom"

[hedwards]

Tablets won't be able to be fully certified by MS if they don't have secure boot enabled with no way of disabling it. There may be some manufacturers that opt to have a second line for Linux, but I doubt that will be very common. The problem is one of logistics it's not that much cheaper to have a second line that supports Linux, you have to support it and QA it. But, if you just ship hardware that's supported by Linux then you lose no money on that and sell more units. Of course MS is the party here that's misbehaving.

The issue is that ultimately, they're selling these devices that can't have other OSes installed without cracking them, that's inherently a freedom issue.

Re:"Freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

That assumes there will be non-Windows variants of these devices readily accessible. I seriously doubt there will be in any meaningful quantity. It's also likely that the non-Windows variants will cost more "due to higher support costs" and therefore the market will largely consist of Windows only devices.

Re:"Freedom"

[Wesley Felter]

They'll probably make a Windows 8 version (locked) and an Android version (also locked) of each tablet. The demand for anything else is too small to bother with. People who want regular Linux will have to jailbreak.

Re:"Freedom"

[forkfail]

The fundamental problem is that the relative market share is such that a whole lot of OEM's won't bother with non-Microsoft hardware. Given Microsoft's market share, they won't see adequate money in it (there would be money, just not enough). Add in Microsoft's perpensity to bully and persuade OEM's, the hardware just won't be there for the most part.

And this still doesn't address the problem of not really owning your hardware, which is what this change does. You will be absolutely limited in what software your hardware can run.

Re:"Freedom"

[forkfail]

That's the thing. You won't even be able to jailbreak.

Re:"Freedom"

[exomondo]

The issue is that ultimately, they're selling these devices that can't have other OSes installed without cracking them, that's inherently a freedom issue.

So is Apple, but more to the point nothing is stopping Linux tablets from coming to market, in fact there are lots of them out there now. If you buy a 'Designed for Windows 8' device it's no different than buying an iPad with regard to the operating system. I doubt there are many people out there who bought an iPad and are complaining that they can't install Linux on it (me included), so why should it be any different for these 'Designed for Windows 8' devices?

Re:"Freedom"

[viperidaenz]

Microsofts market share? Tell me, what is their huge share in the ARM powered PC/tablet market?

Re:"Freedom"

[Tsingi]

I have an iPad, and I have two Linux Tablets (Before you declare me crazy, I only paid for one of them, a Linux tablet.) I don't see that this is a big issue for tablets. And I build my personal dev boxes from scratch, so I doubt it will be an issue there. You can buy Linux laptops now, not sure how this will affect that. I suspect we will get around it all pretty quick anyway.

All that aside, why would I want to buy a device that will not let me install whatever I want on my computer?

Also, Bonch, please stop your trolling campaign campaign, it's getting really old and annoying. All it does is convince people that you are a worse troll than we used to think you were.

Re:"Freedom"

[pclminion]

I don't see why Microsoft, the owner of the Windows trademark, cannot impose whatever rules it wants to on manufacturers who want to put the Windows logo on their products. This was a big deal in the 90's because Microsoft already had huge platform lock-in, so it was unfeasible to ship a product that wasn't Windows-certified. But on ARM? There's no Windows ARM software available, no multi-decade legacy of crap following behind it, so where is the lock-in? The Windows logo no longer indicates a platform advantage, it merely indicates you passed Microsoft's tests.

A manufacturer can still make an ARM device that runs Windows and allow Linux as well -- they just can't put the Windows logo on it.

The problem is stupid consumers who demand to see that logo.

Re:"Freedom"

[Microlith]

So is Apple

Apple does not sell its OS to 3rd party hardware vendors and dictate how to lock down the device.

nothing is stopping Linux tablets from coming to market, in fact there are lots of them out there now

There are, but how long until MS ramps up the pressure to push Android out of the market via legal and possibly illegal means?

If you buy a 'Designed for Windows 8' device it's no different than buying an iPad with regard to the operating system.

Sure it is. The vendor is being forced by the OS supplier to set the device up in a way that precludes alternatives, and leveraging their monopoly platform to do it.

I doubt there are many people out there who bought an iPad and are complaining that they can't install Linux on it (me included), so why should it be any different for these 'Designed for Windows 8' devices?

Yeah, minorities should ALWAYS be ignored. Only the masses should ever get what they want, everyone else can go fuck themselves. Right?

Re:"Freedom"

[LifesABeach]

From my perspective, m$ historic QA on this topic is usually flexible. I plan to buy the tablet, stick a USB up its, "port," and run linux; life is good.

"Come Bell, I have something to show you." - the Beast

Re:"Freedom"

[Anpheus]

If the Android version doesn't have a (securely) locked bootloader too then yes you will be able to.

The situation with Windows 8 on ARM *sucks*, I don't like it and I don't think they should dictate to OEMs that they must not allow custom mode. In my opinion, they went too far with locking down ARM and freeing up x86. For Windows 8 x86 machines, it is required that the OEMs provide a mechanism to install alternative operating systems. For ARM, it is required that they not. This is, to me, wrong. But c'est la vie, it is actually not too different from other tablets, most Android tablets I believe have locked bootloaders that had to be circumvented to install other OSes. And of course, the iPad is a black box.

Re:"Freedom"

[ewanm89]

Of course you can, it may require replacing a chip on the motherboard but of course it's possible with enough time and effort.

Re:"Freedom"

[Synerg1y]

To add, Android is based off Linux~ and MOST tablets ship w that, win 7 tablets are still IT only for sanity's sake.

Re:"Freedom"

[Darinbob]

It's a freedom argument. If I purchase a device then it is MINE. I should be able to control it, take it apart, paint it a different color, give it to my kids, etc. And this freedom means I should be able to put my own software on it without permission from some bozos in Redmond.

Pre-installed Linux is only halfway there. It means I can't change the linux if I want to, or put on BSD, etc. Stop treating these devices like stupid consumer gadgets. Ok, they probably are going to be just that in practice, but that doesn't mean they should be forbidden to be more than hipster jewelry.

Re:"Freedom"

[MrHanky]

So taking away your freedom to tinker with a gadget you own is an inconvenience issue, not a freedom issue? I think it's more than rather inconvenient that you no longer own the objects you buy. It's a property issue, not an inconvenience.

Re:"Freedom"

[hedwards]

Because there are limits to what you can require. Requiring that third parties only allow your OS to be installable is significantly worse than bundling a web browser with your OS. Ultimately this sort of multi-corporation misconduct is likely to be a violation of Sherman in so far as it stymies competion and prevents the user from having the full choice of OS on the device.

This is very different from the iPad where Apple pays for the entire development process and sells it to consumers.

Re:"Freedom"

[Darinbob]

Because when you buy a device you should be allowed to modify it. It is your private property at that point. It doesn't matter how many stupid people only use them to show off to friends, if even one single person in the entire world wants to be able to modify their personal property in a way that causes no harm to others then it is their right to do so.

Re:"Freedom"

[Microlith]

If the Android version doesn't have a (securely) locked bootloader too then yes you will be able to

Well with the prevalence of Microsoft's "solution" they may simply swap Microsoft's keys for their own and install Android.

it is required that the OEMs provide a mechanism to install alternative operating systems.

Except there's no standardization or automation to allowing a user to safely and easily install an OS that isn't already listed in the key storage. Check this writeup once the site is done protesting SOPA/PIPA to see how.

Re:"Freedom"

[Sir_Sri]

Other way around. These are linux (andriod) tablet makers being paid by MS to make a Windows version. Just like phones, these will be samsung galaxy tabs, acer iconias etc. with a minor refresh/rebrand to run windows. Not windows tablets being done the other way around.

The gadget market is very different from the desktop market anyway. Right now it's an iPad market, with some other hangers on. Whether MS can change that is an open question, but it's not like you can put linux on your iPad, and it has 90% of the market right now.

Re:"Freedom"

[exomondo]

Apple does not sell its OS to 3rd party hardware vendors and dictate how to lock down the device.

So what? And they only have to lock it down if it's 'Designed for Windows 8' and if it's ARM, if they don't put on that Windows 8 sticker then they don't have to do anything.

There are, but how long until MS ramps up the pressure to push Android out of the market via legal and possibly illegal means?

And i'm sure Google will just rest on their laurels and just let Android die.

Sure it is. The vendor is being forced by the OS supplier to set the device up in a way that precludes alternatives, and leveraging their monopoly platform to do it.

But it isn't, if you didn't want Windows 8 you wouldn't buy a device designed for it, unless of course you're an idiot.

Yeah, minorities should ALWAYS be ignored. Only the masses should ever get what they want, everyone else can go fuck themselves. Right?

That appears to be what the OEMs think, if they haven't produced a product for a market it indicates that market is likely not viable.

Re:"Freedom"

[Microlith]

Have you ever tried to remove a surface-mount SoC? With underfill securing it to the board?

Yeah, good fucking luck with that.

Re:"Freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that this is pretty much how the free market works, right?

Yeah, minorities should ALWAYS be ignored. Only the masses should ever get what they want, everyone else can go fuck themselves. Right?

Re:"Freedom"

[Darinbob]

Yes, this is the entire point. They're bringing this concept to basic general computing; people are already annoyed at having to jailbreak consumer blackboxes like phones and tablets and game consoles, and now that the masses have rolled over and wagged their tails when presented with these restrictions the powers that be are going even further.

Re:"Freedom"

[hedwards]

The problem is the same as those designed for Windows devices in the mid to late '90s. You would pay about double for that logo even though what you were buying was typically stripped of the usual chips so that the functionality could be run through Windows only drivers. Except in this case it's even more insidious as the devices themselves will have all the capabilities needed to run something else, but because of MS will be rendered incapable of doing so.

It's clear there's antitrust violations involved with this. You cannot force companies to lock out competitors in this fashion. And you cannot use such phony certification requirements as a way of punishing manufacturers that don't go along with the anti-competitive behavior.

Apple isn't a good influence on the industry, but what they're doing is significantly less evil in this respect from what MS is doing.

Re:"Freedom"

[exomondo]

Because when you buy a device you should be allowed to modify it. It is your private property at that point. It doesn't matter how many stupid people only use them to show off to friends, if even one single person in the entire world wants to be able to modify their personal property in a way that causes no harm to others then it is their right to do so.

And absolutely nothing whatsoever stops you from doing that, for a real-world example just look at all the ipad/iphone jailbreaking.

Re:"Freedom"

[Synerg1y]

Actually, that works out great, less devices for Linux to support, so hopefully they can refocus some coding effort from driver support. It also works because YOU as the consumer are responsible for buying what you need, not the manufacturer (so buy a tablet you know supports it).

I'm not hearing the same news for desktops though? I could care less about the tablets / phones / ARMs. Desktops and laptops, seem to replace the bios w/o the bs. http://www.techspot.com/news/40493-uefi-to-start-dominating-bios-in-2011-slash-pc-boot-time.html Not finding a whole lot on it though.

But anyways, all I'm saying is if my tablet has slightly worse hardware specs cause I bought it for the same price as a win 8 tab BUT it lets me run Linux, I just don't think I care. Same w the phones, they can't kill Android because android is supported by the community more than a corporate (google).

Re:"Freedom"

[Darinbob]

And this is just the sort of thing that got MS in trouble with antitrust laws in the past. Yes, they got a slap on the wrist for that and were required to hire an underpaid intern to write "we're sorry" 10 times on the blackboard. Now they're repeating it. OEMs are going to be strong-armed to provide this just like they were strong-armed in the past; if they want the MS seal of approval they have to play ball.

There's no hope in hell of the masses boycotting new consumer devices that have these restrictions; they don't understand the issues and they've proven that they actually want locked up devices as long as they're new and shiny and have rounded corners.

Re:"Freedom"

[migla]

>Admittedly, I have a hard time seeing it as a freedom issue, as these are just tech gadgets at the end of the day. I'd rather it was framed as an inconvenience argument, not a freedom one.

No, at the end of the day, these are general purpose computers, crippled to look like "just tech gadgets".

Even if it would turn out that it is legal for MS to do this, it is wrong. That may come off as subjective, and depending on what weight one assigns to what right and what freedom of whom, one might come up with another answer.

It boils down to chipping away a little freedom of many end users in the face of a lot for one mighty corporation that will want to control and milk the consumers to their detriment, making computing suck a bit more for everyone.

Which side are you on?
 

Re:"Freedom"

[Microlith]

And they only have to lock it down if it's 'Designed for Windows 8'

Everything will be "Designed for Windows 8" if it runs Windows.

and if it's ARM, if they don't put on that Windows 8 sticker then they don't have to do anything.

And Microsoft also doesn't have to sell them licenses they can put on devices that don't meet the guidelines.

And i'm sure Google will just rest on their laurels and just let Android die.

Google may continue to fight but all MS has to do is hinder and slow it.

if you didn't want Windows 8 you wouldn't buy a device designed for it, unless of course you're an idiot.

Go find me a motherboard or graphics card that don't have the logo. Go on, do it. I doubt you can.

What the hell. Not a few years ago restrictions like this were acknowledged as being bad. Now people can't rush fast enough to defend lock down like this, especially with Microsoft pushing it.

Re:"Freedom"

[pclminion]

The only thing MS is requiring is that you play by their rules if you want to use their trademark. Seeing as there is no present market for Windows-capable ARM devices, I do not see how such a requirement amounts to an abuse of monopoly status -- there IS no monopoly status in this market segment.

On the other hand, there are already plenty of ARM devices out there which do NOT run Windows. These devices are enormously successful already. You can buy one right now. You are complaining that you cannot put a non-Windows OS on some hypothetical device that has been designed exclusively to run Windows and sports the Windows logo. You are talking nonsense.

Re:"Freedom"

[Microlith]

Irrelevant. They control Windows and the APIs that it delivers.

Re:"Freedom"

[ewanm89]

Yes, it's a PITA, but not impossible as was suggested."can't" is not the same as "bloody nightmare".

Re:"Freedom"

[exomondo]

The problem is the same as those designed for Windows devices in the mid to late '90s. You would pay about double for that logo even though what you were buying was typically stripped of the usual chips so that the functionality could be run through Windows only drivers.

It's completely different now, iOS and Android dominate the tablet market, there is an abundance of choice for consumers.

It's clear there's antitrust violations involved with this. You cannot force companies to lock out competitors in this fashion.

They aren't, nothing stops them from building non-Windows 8 devices, do you think all the existing linux tablets will just vanish? If MS contracted these companies to build the devices for them that would be ok?

Re:"Freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

That, as they say in the math biz, reduces it to an already solved case for MS, i.e. forcing OEMs to only provide their products with Windows pre-installed.

Re:"Freedom"

[sjames]

Of course you're free to take a walk in your own front yard, just watch out for the tiger pits we put in. And the bear traps. OH, and the unmarked minefield. But we have done absolutely nothing to stop you from taking a nice walk in your own front yard.

Re:"Freedom"

[Microlith]

The Windows logo no longer indicates a platform advantage

Sorry, no. It's a HUGE platform advantage, because they can place the same logo on tablets and desktops. The catch with the Windows 8 tablet is the software is available only via the store. This is great for Microsoft, because they can say "buy the software for Windows 8 on our store, and you can use it on both your desktop and tablet!"

So they link the desktop monopoly to the tablet space, and leverage it to extend their reach into another.

A manufacturer can still make an ARM device that runs Windows and allow Linux as well -- they just can't put the Windows logo on it.

Can they? I deeply suspect that Microsoft will make OEMs agree that any and all tablets running Windows will meet the logo requirements, or they won't get the OEM agreement they want (IE no Windows for your tablets.)

The problem is stupid consumers who demand to see that logo.

And that's exactly what Microsoft is banking on. Oh and finding some way to drive Android out of the market.

Re:"Freedom"

[exomondo]

Everything will be "Designed for Windows 8" if it runs Windows.

No it won't.

And Microsoft also doesn't have to sell them licenses they can put on devices that don't meet the guidelines.

Citation? They don't have to give them discounts, but then the manufacturers don't have to sell them with Windows either, they could sell them with Linux.

Google may continue to fight but all MS has to do is hinder and slow it.

Hinder and slow it? Android dominates MS in the tablet market as it is. And of course Google or Apple couldn't do the same to MS.

Go find me a motherboard or graphics card that don't have the logo. Go on, do it. I doubt you can.

Why? The tablet market is already saturated with devices that don't have the Windows logo.

What the hell. Not a few years ago restrictions like this were acknowledged as being bad. Now people can't rush fast enough to defend lock down like this, especially with Microsoft pushing it.

Yeah look at how the ipad has destroyed the world with its lockdown.

Re:"Freedom"

[exomondo]

Of course you're free to take a walk in your own front yard, just watch out for the tiger pits we put in. And the bear traps. OH, and the unmarked minefield. But we have done absolutely nothing to stop you from taking a nice walk in your own front yard.

Yeah look out, your Windows 8 tablet will try and kill you if modify it, like all the jailbreaking deaths that occurred.

Re:"Freedom"

[visualight]

If the Android version doesn't have a (securely) locked bootloader too then yes you will be able to.

They all do though. I bought a galaxy 10.1 *specifically* because it came unlocked but they locked it in an OTA update three months later. This isn't even a phone, it's WIFI only...(seriously DIAF samsung, I will hate you forever)

No one would tolerate a PC that you can't flash BIOS on but there seems to be and endless supply of idiots and fanboys who think that somehow a tablet is "different".

Re:"Freedom"

[sjames]

In that case, it'll just kill your time and money.

Re:"Freedom"

[Microlith]

It's hard enough that no one outside of people with access to high end rework labs and the ability to repair damaged PCBs and reball SoCs is going to be able to do it. So claiming that "it's possible" with that degree of difficulty and barrier to entry is at best a sad, sad joke.

Re:"Freedom"

[hedwards]

There is no requirement that you dominate the market to be guilty of antitrust violations. Agreements between companies to lock out other companies to this extent are going to be in violation of antitrust regulations. This isn't just an exclusivity agreement between the companies, this is an exclusivity agreement that also involves the end user and prevents access to the device by other companies.

If MS contracted them to build the devices that would be a completely different situation. That's well established and Apple, for one, has been doing that for decades. What isn't well established is the practice of withholding certification if the product is capable of running a competitors product.

Re:"Freedom"

[pclminion]

Can they? I deeply suspect that Microsoft will make OEMs agree that any and all tablets running Windows will meet the logo requirements, or they won't get the OEM agreement they want (IE no Windows for your tablets.)

Where is Microsoft's leverage? No such devices exist! Nobody is dependent on Windows ARM to get shit done. A threat to take away something that doesn't even exist is an empty threat. They are completely at the mercy of the manufacturers.

Re:"Freedom"

[Microlith]

No it won't.

Do you seriously think that MS is going to let a vendor ship Windows on a device without their logo on it? Doubtful.

the manufacturers don't have to sell them with Windows either, they could sell them with Linux.

We've said that with PCs as well. Look where that went.

Hinder and slow it? Android dominates MS in the tablet market as it is.

Yeah, which is precisely why Microsoft is doing their little patent protection racket against every Android vendor in the market. They want to weaken Android and raise the cost of using it so that the vendors give up.

The tablet market is already saturated with devices that don't have the Windows logo.

Go do it. I asked you to go find me core system hardware that doesn't have the Windows logo on it.

Yeah look at how the ipad has destroyed the world with its lockdown

Sure, it's causing bullshit lock down and walled gardens to spread.

Re:"Freedom"

[visualight]

Encrypted bootloaders should be illegal on consumer devices. Trusted Computing should never have been allowed to sneak in slowly like it did. There were all those protests and objections, some lip service was paid, and here we are, fucked by the sheep again.

Re:"Freedom"

[Imagix]

The objection that I see is that the platform supports the capability of loading arbitrary OSes, but if the manufacturer wants to run Windows on it, they must go out of their way to make it more difficult for the end user to run other OSes. As opposed to declaring that the device must be shipped in the way that enforces signed bootloaders, but the end-user may turn that enforcement off to load their own arbitrary OSes.

Re:"Freedom"

[exomondo]

There is no requirement that you dominate the market to be guilty of antitrust violations. Agreements between companies to lock out other companies to this extent are going to be in violation of antitrust regulations. This isn't just an exclusivity agreement between the companies, this is an exclusivity agreement that also involves the end user and prevents access to the device by other companies.

But those other companies could use existing Android devices or x86 devices or non-Windows 8 devices or even negotiate with the manufacturers to build devices for their offerings....hell Android was so good that Google didn't even have to do that.

Re:"Freedom"

[symbolset]

This disease has an easy cure. Just don't buy it. You don't want a Windows tablet anyway. Nobody does.

Re:"Freedom"

[exomondo]

Do you seriously think that MS is going to let a vendor ship Windows on a device without their logo on it? Doubtful.

Why not? How can they control who buys Windows?

We've said that with PCs as well. Look where that went.

Dell tried it and it failed because no-one bought them. But in this case Android tablets already exist and are extremely popular.

Yeah, which is precisely why Microsoft is doing their little patent protection racket against every Android vendor in the market.

And that's resulted in the destruction of Android and booming market dominance of Windows Phone...if you live in a reality that isn't this one.

Go do it. I asked you to go find me core system hardware that doesn't have the Windows logo on it.

Windows owns 90%+ of that market, naturally that's what hardware manufacturers want to tap into, that is NOT the case with tablets.

Sure, it's causing bullshit lock down and walled gardens to spread.

And those are really destroying the world, look at how the world hates them! ...except not really, and those who do just choose the alternatives.

Re:"Freedom"

[exomondo]

No, it's only if they want that Windows sticker on it and it's an ARM device.

Re:"Freedom"

[Admiral Burrito]

Yeah look at how the ipad has destroyed the world with its lockdown.

Rome didn't fall in a day.

Re:"Freedom"

[Microlith]

Where is Microsoft's leverage?

The desktop, of course.

Nobody is dependent on Windows ARM to get shit done.

No, but OEMs are dependent on Windows to move desktops.

They are completely at the mercy of the manufacturers.

Microsoft has more power than that and you know it.

Re:"Freedom"

[Microlith]

And I'll be amazed if I ever see an ARM device running Windows 8 that doesn't have the logo on it. I suspect it'll never happen.

Re:"Freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we please stop the wide-eyed naivete regarding Microsoft and markets? Really, it makes this whole site sound like a bunch of 14-year olds who have no bloody clue how the world works.

Microsoft knows what everyone else has figured out: Tablets, as they currently exist, are toys. The real future and money in tablets is in running something vastly more capable than Android 4.0. Since Google can't seem to get its head out of its ass and turn Android into a real competitor for Windows (similar to their non-challenge of Office with Docs), that leaves the door wide open for Windows 8 tablets. But MS doesn't want to run the risk that Google (or FOSS coders) grows a set and makes Android what it could be -- a Windows killer on tablets. So they're locking them out and engaging in blatantly illegal activity.

Why would any hardware manufacturer go along with this? Brush up on the history of the MS tax on systems, and MS's other past horrors, and you can answer that one for yourself.

MS is not only more evil than you imagine, they're more evil than you can imagine.

Re:"Freedom"

[exomondo]

And I'll be amazed if I ever see an ARM device running Windows 8 that doesn't have the logo on it. I suspect it'll never happen.

I'm sure it will if there's a market for it!

Re:"Freedom"

[Microlith]

Why not? How can they control who buys Windows?

Easily. Where do you buy licenses for the ARM version of Windows 8?

But in this case Android tablets already exist and are extremely popular.

They are, but how popular will they be if Microsoft starts subsidizing the tablets to undercut Android, while pressing the "it runs Windows 8 just like your desktop!" angle?

And that's resulted in the destruction of Android and booming market dominance of Windows Phone...if you live in a reality that isn't this one.

Hey, give them time. They're just getting started with their rampage.

Windows owns 90%+ of that market, naturally that's what hardware manufacturers want to tap into, that is NOT the case with tablets.

Yeah, Windows owns 90% of the desktop market. And now you can get it on your tablet too!

And those are really destroying the world, look at how the world hates them!

The "world" is largely unaware of how computers function as a whole. But it's gotten people like you to come out and defend their spread.

those who do just choose the alternatives.

While such alternates are available. Microsoft is working hard to ensure they cease to be.

Re:"Freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

And I think this is the point Microsoft is trying to make.

Tablets are not DIY whitebox machines. These machines are also effectively black boxes, unlike desktop PC's, where even if you could open it,there's nothing to replace.

There is more to complain about with UEFI and secureboot, but only if it's on end-user desktops and laptops. Those run x86.

Re:"Freedom"

[exomondo]

Easily. Where do you buy licenses for the ARM version of Windows 8?

Are you being obtuse or do you actually have no grasp of the subject at all? Windows 8 doesn't exist, hence you cannot buy it.

They are, but how popular will they be if Microsoft starts subsidizing the tablets to undercut Android, while pressing the "it runs Windows 8 just like your desktop!" angle?

Who knows, but they do have to make some money and Android is basically free. Sure there is the MS Tax, but do you really think MS would get to the point of paying people to use Windows and make a loss?

Hey, give them time. They're just getting started with their rampage.

They already get licensing fees and that doesn't seem to be stopping anyone.

Yeah, Windows owns 90% of the desktop market. And now you can get it on your tablet too!

There is always this supposed view that everyone hates Windows so why would people ditch their Android devices and iPads in favor of it?

The "world" is largely unaware of how computers function as a whole. But it's gotten people like you to come out and defend their spread.

The "world" largely doesn't care.

While such alternates are available. Microsoft is working hard to ensure they cease to be.

Google is working hard to kill MS in business and search too, that doesn't mean they'll succeed but you seem to be implying the ipad and android are knocking on death's door.

Re:"Freedom"

[GreatBunzinni]

The bonch / SharkLaser / Overly Critical Guy are shill accounts manipulated by the same organization to astroturf slashdot. They are used to post corporate stories and manipulate public discussion to a more corporate-friendly position, which is pro-Microsoft and anti-Google.

These accounts are employed to push so much PR crap into slashdot discussions that they even manage to paste the same script through different accounts, as shown in this post and this post.

They are also employed together in discussions in order to karmawhore, such as this case, and to deter unfavourable criticism. For a description check out this post.

So, mod these sockpuppet accounts accordingly.

Re:"Freedom"

[Microlith]

Are you being obtuse or do you actually have no grasp of the subject at all? Windows 8 doesn't exist, hence you cannot buy it.

Well, now who is being obtuse. I thought this was a discussion about the upcoming Windows 8 devices, now suddenly it's RIGHT NOW? Holy shit, way to arbitrarily shift contexts when it suits you for the insult!

How can they control who buys Windows, with respect to hardware OEMs? Easy, you can only get such licenses from Microsoft. Was that really so hard?

Sure there is the MS Tax, but do you really think MS would get to the point of paying people to use Windows and make a loss?

That's effectively what they did for a large part of the XBOX and XBOX360's lifetime.

Google is working hard to kill MS in business and search too

Google came out competing fairly, and left Microsoft scrambling to catch up. Microsoft, however, has a reputation for breaking the law and doing many questionable things to ensure that they take control of a market segment and keep others out.

you seem to be implying the ipad and android are knocking on death's door.

iPad? Hardly. Microsoft likes Apple because they are "competition," but they're pretty much the only competitor Microsoft wants. Both Apple and Microsoft hate Google for daring to enter into the market.

Re:"Freedom"

[Darinbob]

There are some cases where secure bootloaders are valid. Ie, so that only owners can modify their devices instead of just anyone who has physical access (electricity meters), rented or leased equipment (broadband routers), and so forth. Sometimes the device requires a level of trust as part of its design and the owners insist on knowing that the firmware has not been tampered with, such as encrypted routers.

Additionally there is often a market need to create a secured device to prevent or discourage third party sales or hacking. I've seen this activity common in medical equipment where there can be an active trade in in Russia or China of buying old machines and reimaging them and there's no opportunity to sue (yes a murky issue as you buy software features separately from hardware, but the end-user is legally forbidden from putting their own software on in many countries). If I go in for radiation therapy treatment I want to know positively that the hardware/firmware/software has passed FDA scrutiny.

The issue here with Microsoft and Apple is that they are huge players in the market and they're not doing this to just niche devices. With MS specifically they have a known guilty track record of antitrust activity. MS isn't going to require signing of all third party apps, they specifically want to make sure there is no competition for the operating system

It would be better overall to allow the consumer to turn on and off the trust levels on the devices. If the operating system boots up and notices that it's not on a secured system then it can just warn the user instead of refusing to boot. This way you can make things more secure without denying the consumer their right to use the equipment in any manner they want.

Re:"Freedom"

[Darinbob]

Except that Windows 8 will refuse to even run if you jailbreak it, and there are good chances you will be unable to replace the bootloader anyway (I can imagine them using ROMs instead of flash). Similarly today if you jailbreak many phones you lose out on a large number of features and stand a chance of having your phone bricked by petulant manufacturers.

Re:"Freedom"

[letsief]

Retail motherboards and graphics cards don't need to meet these requirements. Only complete systems from OEMs do. I think the Windows logo for those products only means they've gone through WHQL testing.

Re:"Freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

You have the right to do it, but that doesn't mean that hardware makers have to make it easy for you.

Re:"Freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not my understanding. Furthermore, I suspect that everyone trashing MS, is making a big mistake and not understanding.

First of all, if you want to run an alternate OS, you can. It just has to be signed, which shouldn't be that big a deal. And my understanding is that either the source organization or the installing user can digitally sign the software install.

The big mistake is this. MS is trying to add additional security to the OS, and security theory says that in order to vet the OS, ultimately you must vet the hardware. The TPM chip is the key to doing this. MS is trying to create a trust chain that starts at the hardware and continues through the OS. Remember all the hits MS took for having unreliable, insecure software? They are doing something about it, something serious. And suddenly the computing community (well, parts of it, likely including the great majority of people who took shots at Windows in years past) is having second thoughts.

Sorry, but right now I don't share these concerns.

Re:"Freedom"

[10101001 10101001]

I don't see why Microsoft, the owner of the Windows trademark, cannot impose whatever rules it wants to on manufacturers who want to put the Windows logo on their products.

Off-hand, I'd say because it defeats the purpose of the trademark system?

This was a big deal in the 90's because Microsoft already had huge platform lock-in, so it was unfeasible to ship a product that wasn't Windows-certified.

It's actually been worse since thanks to device driver signing. At least up until now, there was the legitimate explanation that they wanted to verify drivers (and hence hardware) were stable and secure enough. Well, slippery slope and all...

But on ARM? There's no Windows ARM software available, no multi-decade legacy of crap following behind it, so where is the lock-in? The Windows logo no longer indicates a platform advantage, it merely indicates you passed Microsoft's tests.

Test Case #1 - Does it forbid running Linux? What does that have to do with Windows, again?

A manufacturer can still make an ARM device that runs Windows and allow Linux as well -- they just can't put the Windows logo on it.

How about this: devices that can run Windows 8 on ARM can use the Windows logo and devices that can *only* run Windows 8 on ARM can use the Anti-Linux Windows-only logo. That's a better communication of the point, right?

Re:"Freedom"

[jbolden]

So they link the desktop monopoly to the tablet space, and leverage it to extend their reach into another.

Extending a monopoly is precisely what is illegal for a monopolist. Now if Apple starts doing better on the desktop, and Microsoft can argue they no longer have a desktop monopoly..

Re:"Freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep its a case of "won't be buying one of those then". MIllions of others will but I won't. After all tablets, etc - all gadgets. Cool but I don't need one. BTW I still can't figure what problem secure boot is a solution to. Is it trying to solve the problem of people choosing something that you're not selling?

Re:"Freedom"

[jedidiah]

Except this isn't hardware markers. This is an abusive monopoly that likes to bully around hardware makers. They have been told to stop repeatedly by multiple national governments and even have managed to be officially labeled as a monopoly by a court of law.

Hardware makers are just as much the victim here as anyone else. Always have been.

Re:"Freedom"

[jc42]

All that aside, why would I want to buy a device that will not let me install whatever I want on my computer?

Perhaps because that's the only way it's available? I remember a decade or so back, when Microsoft tried to introduce their first tablet (which pretty much failed), and the news came out that it was available with linux installed in Asia, but not in the US. I didn't believe for a second that this was due to the Asian suppliers refusing to sell linux systems to Americans. We all knew what the real reason was.

Another possible reason: I have four linux boxes here in my office. One of them I bought. The other 3 started life as Windows boxes, but were discarded because the latest Windows upgrades wouldn't run properly on them. So I got them for free, installed linux, and years later they're still running fine, doing their jobs as assorted servers. This sort of recycling won't be possible with these new tablets, unless someone works out a reliable exploit that'll break Microsoft's lock on the hardware.

Re:"Freedom"

[exomondo]

Well, now who is being obtuse. I thought this was a discussion about the upcoming Windows 8 devices, now suddenly it's RIGHT NOW? Holy shit, way to arbitrarily shift contexts when it suits you for the insult!

You asked where you could buy a Windows 8 ARM license, such a thing does not exist, since it is the topic of discussion surely you know this so why would you ask such a question?

How can they control who buys Windows, with respect to hardware OEMs? Easy, you can only get such licenses from Microsoft. Was that really so hard?

Since when can you only get them from MS? And where do they state that you cannot buy them for hardware not 'Designed for Windows 8'? That covers the marketing sticker, not the license.

That's effectively what they did for a large part of the XBOX and XBOX360's lifetime.

They are loss-leaders, Windows (and Office) are where MS makes the vast majority of their money, they can't just start paying companies to take them.

Re:"Freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I think the problem is in OSS/BSD's court. What we (a.k.a. those hackers who know how) need to build is a "secure" loader/stub for third party operating systems, kind of like GRUB but on one side it would look like a secure/signed OS kernel, and on the other side it would permit anything at all.

Why such a solution? Because *some* hardware always is going to be "secure", and we want to run on that too.

Why do *we* need to build it? Because we want the *manufacturers* to be able to include it for their customers with zero amount of work, and still be able to say their system is completely "secure" if they elect to use Windows 8, because it technically really is after all.

martin-boundary (no login today)

Re:"Freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but OEMs are dependent on Windows to move desktops

Why? Does Linux suck so bad?

Also explain how OEMs like dell ship Linux desktops along side Windows desktops. Sure looks like MS has no say in what they do. But hey I'm not a rabid anti-ms troll like you. I try and look at existing facts rather than paranoid delusions.

Re:"Freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you just kill yourself.

Re:"Freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

Big difference between apple and Microsoft, apple is a hardware vendor so it is not cutting deals with other hardware manufacturers. Microsoft on the other hand is, when it comes to PCs Microsoft can do closed door deals with the hardware manufacturers saying "if you don't allow linux to be put on your devices, we'll give you windows for 50% off". Because they hold a monopoly on the hardware market, a PC manufacturer can't turn this down, if they do, than their prices are drastically undercut by the competition that does and they are soley limited to their linux offerings and cannot compete in the windows side at all. Because apple does not allow the hardware manufacters to make their devices, nor do they have a 90% market share of phones or tablets, they don't have this kind of sway to prevent android from being loaded on samsung/htc/nokia phones.

Re:"Freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

But MS doesn't want to run the risk that Google (or FOSS coders) grows a set and makes Android what it could be -- a Windows killer on tablets.

Cos if MS release a tablet all those Android tablets out there will cease to exist, MS will pay everyone to stop making them because they have all the money in the world and they control the government and they control your mind to make you not want Android tablets!

So they're locking them out and engaging in blatantly illegal activity.

Yeah those locked-bootloader laws are being violated, but they only apply to Microsoft because they're evil, everyone else can do it though!

Re:"Freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

But it isn't, if you didn't want Windows 8 you wouldn't buy a device designed for it, unless of course you're an idiot.

This is true, but it prevents people from discovering a new (and possibly/probably/definitely better) operating system, which is anticompetitive because in order for a market to be competitive the consumer has to know about alternatives and choose the best one. This would prevent people from going outside the Windows camp, unless, of course, they wanted to join the Apple camp.

I don't have a problem with that because Apple does not dictate what other manufacturers do with their devices (patent bullshit aside), whereas Microsoft, due to their monopoly position, can choose to not allow hardware vendors to ship Windows certified tablets (and it's just a coincidence that those vendors have "difficulties" getting any Windows licenses at all).

Don't believe me that it will happen? It already has, when Microsoft made deals with OEMs to not ship anything but Windows or a PC with no operating system at all.

It is time to bring back the antitrust investigation on Microsoft, because they are right back to their dirty tricks that they used to play.

Re:"Freedom"

[1u3hr]

I doubt there are many people out there who bought an iPad and are complaining that they can't install Linux on it (me included), so why should it be any different for these 'Designed for Windows 8' devices?

The difference is: Apple makes and sells iPads. Microsoft doesn't make the hardware. They're leaning on the the manufacturers to prevent any competition.

Re:"Freedom"

[ozmanjusri]

You asked where you could buy a Windows 8 ARM license, such a thing does not exist

Where can I buy XBox/360 licenses to build consoles with my own hardware?

Re:"Freedom"

[mcrbids]

Your 90% market figure is dated. The reality is that it's more like 67% which is still dominant but still a far cry from the 98% a year or so ago. We don't have an iPad in my home, but we do have a nook and a cheap-o knockoff.

Re:"Freedom"

[cookd]

Yeah, the real reason was that the OEM couldn't be bothered to add Linux as an option because it increases production and support costs far more than the cost of a Windows license, while increasing your potential market by 0.01%. I read up on some manufacturers who tried providing Linux options. Generally they discovered that they got more accidental buyers than intentional ones, so offering the Linux option is terribly expensive for them -- they have to add a completely different disk image for the Linux version, they have to add a (potentially confusing) menu option to their order forms, they have to train support staff, the Linux version would tend to produce far more support calls and far more returns, etc., meaning that after all costs have been accounted for, the Linux version costs more for the OEM to produce than the Windows version. (This is for consumer-oriented products; it's usually a different story for server-oriented products.) The "Windows Tax" for most consumer machines is around $20, and even one additional support call can make those "savings" meaningless to the OEM.

Yes, this situation happens to play into Microsoft's hands, but it isn't Microsoft's fault, and there isn't any easy solution. If you can figure out a way for Dell to offer a Linux option for their consumer products that doesn't cost them anything in terms of manufacturing, advertising, training, or support, please share it with them. I'm sure they would be happy to talk. Until then, just buy the PC with the cheapest version of Windows on it (usually Home Basic) and format it as soon as you get it. Maybe try to get your $20 refunded if you really want to stick it to Microsoft on the principle of the thing.

Re:"Freedom"

[cookd]

I agree that this is an overblown issue. However, your understanding is incorrect here. The OS being installed has to be signed with a key that is trusted by the device's UEFI, and the set of trusted keys is hard-coded when the device is manufactured. Microsoft's requirements specifically say that you must not be able to add new trusted keys after the device has been manufactured. I don't know what Microsoft's requirements are for what keys must be included or excluded from the set of trusted keys (I suspect that the "Microsoft Windows Hardware Compatibility" certificate will be trusted; I don't know whether Verisign or other 3rd parties will be allowed to be trusted), but looking at previous similar situations it is almost certain that there will be a way for a 3rd party to get an OS signed if they're willing to pay $500 for a certificate.

So corporations would probably be able to produce a corporate-branded edition of Linux (including signed bootloader, kernel, and kernel modules), either for internal use or to be shared with the world. Non-profit organizations that produce operating systems (FreeBSD and Linux) would have to release signed versions. End users would no longer be able to compile their own kernels or kernel modules if they want to have them run on "Designed for Windows 8" ARM hardware -- they would have to get the kernel and the kernel modules from a certified source. OR they could buy ARM hardware that isn't "Designed for Windows 8" and do whatever they want.

Re:"Freedom"

[CAIMLAS]

Tablets won't be able to be fully certified by MS if they don't have secure boot enabled with no way of disabling it.

So? When was the last time you heard anything even remotely interesting from Microsoft in the consumer market? And, in the consumer market, I mean "something which can validly appeal to Joe Sixpack".

Xbox 360? Before that, what? The Xbox?

This isn't Microsoft's market anymore. People buy Windows because it runs on the computers they buy, or because they need it for games or Office.

On the other hand, people actively seek out Android and IOS (Apple) products. They've been hot sellers at Christmas for years.

Microsoft isn't going to sell Windows 8 tablets or phones without a very significant incentive. "Office compatibility" isn't the must-have feature that it used to be, especially on a portable. For starters, people aren't going to jump for that shark unless there is something out there to rival App Store and Android Market. Microsoft will have to do something on par with what they did for the Xbox: bring something to the platform (console games) which had never been done well before (multiplayer FPS).

Asus has them thoroughly beat on the "works as well as a laptop for most things" department. Streaming and playing media, games, and communication are thick as thieves. Mail is meh, and other communication tools are fairly well fleshed out, too. Nobody seems to care about "works like Office, but in my hand". Their only ace here is probably some sort of Skynet-style navigation system, and it would have to work flawlessly. (Meanwhile, I don't see Google sitting down and letting geolocational superiority slipping out of their hands... Latitude/Navigation/Maps/etc. aren't great, but they're good tools.)

Basically: why would I, or anyone else, want a phone or tablet from Microsoft at this point? There is not only no incentive, but very little conceivable incentive: the only thing I can think of would be a single device to "bind them all": my phone would dock to my tablet, or my TV, or my computer. It could be my media center. I could use it for all of those things. Personally, that's only mildly appealing, because I'd still have to buy all the 'docks', and I've got devices that do that all already, anyway.

Re:"Freedom"

[SuricouRaven]

"Why not? How can they control who buys Windows?"

Because they sell it! If they don't make an OEM licence available, then the tablet isn't going to ship with windows, and they won't make the OEM licence available to any manufacturer who doesn't get the sticker. The only other way they might be able to put windows on a tablet would be buying a retail licence, but that'll likely cost more than every other component of the tablet put together.

Re:"Freedom"

[chuckugly]

How is the efforts of a non-player in the market in anyway anti-competitive? If you want to go after someone go after Apple, they are currently the dominant force in the market and they lock their platform down.

Re:"Freedom"

[SuricouRaven]

The sticker is not optional. If they don't get the sticker, they won't qualifiy for bulk-discount OEM licences, which means their tablets will have to cost at least a hundred dollars more and so be completly unsellable. This is assuming Windows 8 ARM will even *run* on a device without a locked-down secure boot.

Re:"Freedom"

[bemymonkey]

What's stopping a vendor from creating a Linux-based ARM tablet right now? Why is Linux suddenly viable when Windows ARM tablets appear?

If there was a (profitable) market for this stuff, we'd have $Distro tablets already.

Re:"Freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know. I would like to order a linksys router running Windows Routing Services, or use Windows on my TomTom. How about a Motorola XOOM with Windows Phone 7? Oh, I guess it's ok if it's a one way street.

Re:"Freedom"

[Anne Thwacks]

Tablets won't be able to be fully certified by MS if they don't have secure boot enabled with no way of disabling it.

IANAL, but this would appear to contravene European laws on restrictive trade practices. I can see another monopoly related court case on the horizon, and a possible way for Europe to pay of its bankers.

Re:"Freedom"

[Anne Thwacks]

They have been told to stop repeatedly by multiple national governments and even have managed to be officially labeled as a monopoly by a court of law.

There is nothing wrong or illegal about being a monopoly - its called "winning". The problem is abuse of monopoly, which appears to be rather popular with MS.

Re:"Freedom"

[KingMotley]

And Microsoft also doesn't have to sell them licenses they can put on devices that don't meet the guidelines.

I suppose they don't have to, but there has never been an instance of Microsoft not selling the OS because the machine they were going to put it on didn't meet one of their marketing "Designed for..." campaigns. This is just bullshit FUD.

Re:"Freedom"

[Anne Thwacks]

You don't want a Windows tablet anyway. Nobody does.

You might want to Google "PT Barnum"

Re:"Freedom"

[cookd]

I don't think it is accurate to say that "any ARM device that ships with Windows 8 will never run another operating system unless...". First, it should be changed to "any ARM device with the 'Designed for Windows 8' logo will never run another operating system unless..." since it isn't the presence of Windows 8 that determines the status of secure boot. Second, the "unless..." part is pretty important and should be emphasized. Just as Microsoft will be able to sign Windows, other organizations will be able to sign their own operating systems. And hacking/jailbreaking will always happen. So it is more accurate to say "any ARM device with the 'Designed for Windows 8' logo will have to be jailbroken before it can run any unsigned operating system".

In any case, it seems that Microsoft's rules here are the most open of any tablet manufacturer. Can you install your own copy of Linux on an iPad? No. Can you install your own copy of Linux on an Android device? Only if the manufacturer was kind enough to leave your bootloader unlocked. Can you install your own copy of Linux on a "Designed for Windows 8" device? Yes, as long as you get it signed first.

Open questions:

Will you be able to buy Windows 8 for ARM on a tablet that doesn't have the "Designed for Windows 8" logo certification? If so, then I imagine there will be a lot of vendors willing to forego the logo certification and advertise the tablet as "Linux-compatible". Of course, in that case, I would hope they would advertise that they passed all other "Designed for Windows 8" logo requirements. On the other hand, if Windows 8 for ARM is restricted to OEMs selling properly-certified tablets, OEMs will probably be less likely to sell Linux-compatible variants.

On what terms will 3rd parties be able to sign their operating systems? There will definitely be ways to do it, but it won't be free. Getting the OS signed will probably have a fee, and nobody will want to have an OS signed in their name unless the OS is a "closed system". In other words, I would be very nervous about getting a standard GRUB binary signed in my name, because anybody could then take that GRUB binary and use it as part of a rootkit, and it is not beyond the realm of possibility that I might be held liable for damages done by that rootkit. Instead, I would (at the very least) want to modify GRUB so that it shows a splash screen saying "Warning: this version of GRUB can load unsigned operating systems!". Or if the lawyers have their way, I would probably make my GRUB only load signed kernels so that I can pass the blame to whoever signed the kernel. Anybody signing a kernel will probably want to have the same attitude towards unsigned kernel drivers (and probably even unsigned user-mode drivers, since they usually have special capabilities and extra potential for causing mayhem).

How interested will people be in jailbreaking these devices? So far, the best tablets (the ones on which people want to install their custom builds of Linux) are NOT the "Designed for Windows 8" tablets. Will this change in the future? Microsoft's policy only matters if "Designed for Windows 8" tablets become the best tablets on the market. So far that is not the case. If this does wind up being our future, it is at least several years away. What will the tablet market look like then? Will "Designed for Windows 8" tablets really be the only game in town for your next Linux tablet, or will there be other options?

Will you really want to put your own build of Linux on these tablets? I mean, I love tinkering with my desktop and laptop computers as much as the next guy, but phones and tablets are not general-purpose computers -- they're appliances.

Will the major distro providers (Ubuntu, Debian, Red Hat, FreeBSD) step up to the plate and release signed versions of their distros? Will businesses see enough need for custom operating systems to build and sign a Linux image for internal use?

How does code signing play with various open-source licenses? Is it ok to sign a GPLv2 program? What about GPLv3?

Re:"Freedom"

[KingMotley]

Go find me a motherboard or graphics card that don't have the logo. Go on, do it. I doubt you can.

First try:
http://www.evga.com/products/pdf/270-WS-W555.pdf

Second try:
http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/Intel_Socket_2011/P9X79_DELUXE/#overview

Hmm... Third try:
http://www.gigabyte.us/products/product-page.aspx?pid=4046

Can you find a motherboard that actually has the logo?

Re:"Freedom"

[KingMotley]

Do you seriously think that MS is going to let a vendor ship Windows on a device without their logo on it? Doubtful.

Sure, you know how many OEMs sell Windows PCs without the logo? Tons. I made my own PC, and it's not "Built for Windows xx" certified either, and yet it's running Windows 7 just fine.

We've said that with PCs as well. Look where that went.

Almost all the major manufacturers tried, and it wasn't worthwhile. Demand just wasn't there for desktops running linux. However, many DO sell servers with linux either preinstalled or designed for it.

Go do it. I asked you to go find me core system hardware that doesn't have the Windows logo on it.

I listed 3 motherboards above, I can easily find a TON of more components without the logo. Some actually is complaint but the manufacturers never bothered to get it certified, but most do because it is worth it for the major manufacturers.

Re:"Freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

Where can I buy XBox/360 licenses to build consoles with my own hardware?

The don't sell them, to anyone, because they build the hardware...pretty obvious no?

Re:"Freedom"

[exomondo]

The sticker is not optional. If they don't get the sticker, they won't qualifiy for bulk-discount OEM licences

Citation?

Re:"Freedom"

[exomondo]

The difference is: Apple makes and sells iPads. Microsoft doesn't make the hardware. They're leaning on the the manufacturers to prevent any competition.

So if they contracted those companies to build the devices for them to sell that would be totally ok then yeah?

Re:"Freedom"

[KingMotley]

Why not? How can they control who buys Windows?

Easily. Where do you buy licenses for the ARM version of Windows 8?

Same place you buy other Microsoft OS's. You can buy it from the Microsoft Store, leading retailers (newegg, CDW, etc), a corporate volume license, or a 3rd party.

those who do just choose the alternatives.

While such alternates are available. Microsoft is working hard to ensure they cease to be.

The alternatives aren't going anywhere. I didn't see Microsoft Windows Tablet Edition ruining the sales of the iPad, nor Windows Phone 6.5 ruining iPhone/Android sales.

Re:"Freedom"

[KingMotley]

even have managed to be officially labeled as a monopoly by a court of law

Uh, no. They have been deemed to be wielding monopoly power in a specific market. Pretty big difference. A true monopoly would mean that OS/X, OS/2, VMS, AIX, UNIX, and linux didn't exist and/or weren't available anywhere. Even then, there is nothing wrong with a monopoly AT ALL. It's when you use monopoly power to corrupt a different market or use that monopoly power to directly (and sometimes even indirectly) cause harm to consumers that it is illegal.

Re:"Freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

Same place you buy other Microsoft OS's. You can buy it from the Microsoft Store, leading retailers (newegg, CDW, etc), a corporate volume license, or a 3rd party.

[citation needed]

More likely, it will be the same place as you buy IOS or the X-Box 360 OS.

Re:"Freedom"

[KingMotley]

There is no requirement that you dominate the market to be guilty of antitrust violations.

Yes it is. It's the very definition of antitrust.

See:
antitrust/anttrst/
Adjective:
Of or relating to legislation preventing or controlling trusts or other monopolies, with the intention of promoting competition in business.

Re:"Freedom"

[drsmithy]

Sure it is. The vendor is being forced by the OS supplier to set the device up in a way that precludes alternatives, and leveraging their monopoly platform to do it.

Microsoft has a monopoly in tablets OSes ? When did that happen ?

Re:"Freedom"

[drsmithy]

Of course you're free to take a walk in your own front yard, just watch out for the tiger pits we put in. And the bear traps. OH, and the unmarked minefield. But we have done absolutely nothing to stop you from taking a nice walk in your own front yard.

Maybe you shouldn't have bought a house with all those "features", if you didn't want them.

Re:"Freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

ARM tablets won't be able to be fully certified by MS if they don't have secure boot enabled with no way of disabling it.

Fixed that for you.

Between Medfield and newer Atom chips boasting power consumption on par with ARM devices and yet also superior performance, who's going to even care about Win8 on ARM, in any form-factor?

And the same certification guide that requires ARM devices to not provide any way to unlock, also requires that non-ARM (i.e. Intel) devices must have the way for user to disable Secure Boot.

Re:"Freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

What-what, there's someone providing versions of Windows for all those devices, but Linux crowd demanded to make them unworkable?

Oh, I got it, angry Linux geeks told Stevey B. "Dontcha dare add XOOM drivers to WinPhone 7, or we'll cut you up", right?

Because hardware side lets you install whatever in this case, you just need to go ask MS for support. Or write everything yourself - like we do with Linux.

Re:"Freedom"

[1u3hr]

So if they contracted those companies to build the devices for them to sell that would be totally ok then yeah?

I might not be happy about it, but if MS was actually selling the hardware, it wouldn't be the blatant antitrust action that it is now.

Re:"Freedom"

[sjames]

Alas, the realtor strong-armed the builders. They ALL have those 'features', so it's that or live in the gutter.

Re:"Freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

Though I oppose any restriction on devices and appliances I buy..
As a member of the EU, seeing it in the light you just put it.. Well, I suppose the EU could use a little more money from MS. LOL

Re:"Freedom"

[drsmithy]

Alas, the realtor strong-armed the builders. They ALL have those 'features', so it's that or live in the gutter.

Really ? Because I could have sworn there's these two other builders in town...

Re:"Freedom"

[exomondo]

What they are doing is effectively contracting companies to build hardware and also distribute it whilst giving them some freedom over the exact specs. Apple contract companies (like Foxxcon) to build their hardware, give them no freedom over the specs and no branding and handle distribution themselves. You find the latter to be acceptable but the former unacceptable?

Re:"Freedom"

[sjames]

There were, but they are toeing the line now so they don't get blackballed.

Re:"Freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

You see the difference in the moment you dare to start to look in the future and still remember the past. Go and try to buy a laptop with linux preinstalled. What is the choice you have? Poor. You can still install (I do) some - whatever- linux system and I pay to MS for not using windows. Ok, still some freedom. Do you already see the difference? I will not be able to benefit from HW development anymore, he?

I doubt there are many people out there who bought an iPad and are complaining that they can't install Linux on it (me included), so why should it be any different for these 'Designed for Windows 8' devices?

Re:"Freedom"

[grahamm]

There are some cases where secure bootloaders are valid. Ie, so that only owners can modify their devices instead of just anyone who has physical access (electricity meters), rented or leased equipment (broadband routers), and so forth. Sometimes the device requires a level of trust as part of its design and the owners insist on knowing that the firmware has not been tampered with, such as encrypted routers.

Yes, but that is putting control in the hands of the owner of the device. Trusted computing and secure boot is doing the opposite and removing control from the owner of the device and placing it in the hnads of the supplier of one of the components.

Re:"Freedom"

[1u3hr]

hat they are doing is effectively contracting companies to build hardware ...

MS isn't buying or selling computers. So, no, they aren't.

Re:"Freedom"

[cowtamer]

I doubt there are many people out there who bought an iPad and are complaining that they can't install Linux on it (me included), so why should it be any different for these 'Designed for Windows 8' devices?

For several reasons:

1) In case you haven't noticed, the tablet is (not so slowly) replacing the laptop and the desktop. By the time the transition is done, you may notice that all you can purchase is a subscription to use your tablet. The tablet itself may be prohibitively expensive, but easily leased from the connectivity provider, much like your cell phone. This will discourage casual hacking or jailbreaking. It'll be like the good old days of leasing your phone from the phone company. The "desktop" may turn into a developer only tool, much like the console (XBox, Playstation, etc.) developer machines you can buy for around $10K *if* you qualify.

2) The rise of Linux was enabled by the abundance of cheap hardware originally meant for the 'WinTel' platform. Had the devices been locked to Windows 3.1, the world would look very different right now.

3) Apple is a genuine OEM (in that they manufacture both hardware and software and sell you a complete device). There is much less of a need to replace the software (although we'd all love to have the freedom to do so). Anything you buy with Windows on it is a much less integrated solution.

4) Most importantly, we'd like to be able to run *FREE* software on commodity hardware. Economies of scale do not operate the way libertarians fantasize -- the free market will NOT spawn a sizable open source hardware industry (if you believe otherwise, please point me to the tens of truly open smart phones that I can buy right now). There *may* be one or two tablets which allow free software in a locked down world in order to satisfy the die hards -- but they will be several generations behind the state of the art.

Call me paranoid if you wish, but I believe this trend is part of a decade long *gradual* transition to trusted computing for consumer hardware. What started out with consoles (cryptographic signing of games) moved to smart phones and is now moving to tablets.

Think about it: we live in an age of pervasive connectivity, hardware manufacturers which own content creators (e.g., Sony) and rent politicians (who cared little about your rights to begin with). You should *want* the freedom to run your own software, even if you choose not to at this moment.

Re:"Freedom"

[amorsen]

IANAL, but this would appear to contravene European laws on restrictive trade practices. I can see another monopoly related court case on the horizon

Yes, their wrist really HURTS from last timely. SURELY they won't do it again after such punishment.

Re:"Freedom"

[Jefftoe]

I used to be MS all the way, but the phrase you used brings chills. I am a so sick of Microsoft's attitude that things need to be "fully certified by Microsoft," including programmers. I am a great software engineer and have always refused MS certification. And now I will refuse it for my hardware. Good post btw.

Re:"Freedom"

[silentcoder]

>Maybe you shouldn't have bought a house with all those "features", if you didn't want them.

Well it's worth considering that neither the realtor nor the sales brochure made any mention of them, the closest being sidelong whispers about "additional security"...

Re:"Freedom"

[silentcoder]

In the meantime they tell prospective buyers: "Our neighborhood guarantees that no old men will shout 'get off my lawn you lousy kids'".

They don't mention that this is because any lousy kids who venture on a lawn would get blown to smithereens...

Re:"Freedom"

[DarwinSurvivor]

If you can figure out a way for Dell to offer a Linux option for their consumer products that doesn't cost them anything in terms of manufacturing, advertising, training, or support, please share it with them. I'm sure they would be happy to talk. Until then, just buy the PC with the cheapest version of Windows on it (usually Home Basic) and format it as soon as you get it. Maybe try to get your $20 refunded if you really want to stick it to Microsoft on the principle of the thing.

How about just selling the machines "blank" like we'e been begging for for years? The ONLY additional cost to that would be an extra radio button on the "configuration" page when purchasing the machine. Seeing as the machine would come with NO software, nobody should expect them to help them with linux anymore than a windows user should expect them to help with photoshop.

Re:"Freedom"

[DarwinSurvivor]

No, but they are known to kill THEMSELVES during jainbreaks. A better analogy would be "Yes, you are fully allowed to swap out the engine in your car, but touch the wrong bolt and the transmission, ECU and front passenger tire will explode!"

Re:"Freedom"

[thetoadwarrior]

Apple's computers are wide open for any OS to be installed. The tablets/phones are locked down but it is their own hardware. They aren't bullying other companies into selling their hardware the Apple way. That's the difference.

No one is complaining that, for example, the xbox is locked down like an iphone. It's the fact Microsoft is now trying to push this onto other companies.

Re:"Freedom"

[thetoadwarrior]

So companies like Asus only make tablets? Most companies make a range of hardware which means if they want to have Windows on the desktop (where the monopoly is at) they have to play ball the MS way.

Re:"Freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple, and actually the point. Android will almost certainly outperform Windows on anything except a desktop form factor. So for the near future at least, this isn't nearly as much to worry about as it when Trusted Computing was proposed.

The key thing here is that for phones and tablets, MS just isn't the dominant player. They might well be able to tie up lots of manufacturers, but they're not going to shift as many units as Apple and Android devices will.

Of course, when Arm starts making inroads into servers and desktops, then the game gets a whole lot more ugly. However, given the number of Linux servers in the datacentre, I doubt anyone's going to be too worried their either.

All of that said, this is still one to refer to the EU and other organisation so they can slap anti-trust and ant-competitive fines on the whole thing.

Re:"Freedom"

[Sir_Sri]

I suppose it depends what you want to count. Is a nook a slate, or an e-book reader as a separate device? or both? Do you want to count sales, or 'active' devices, (how do you define those?).

The stats I'm seeing http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/dec/25/ipad-tablet-dominates-third-quarter-2011 and at your link are comparing android devices to iPads. I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. It might be. But I tend to think the Kindle Fire isn't really a competing product to the iPad.

Re:"Freedom"

[GameboyRMH]

Admittedly, I have a hard time seeing it as a freedom issue, as these are just tech gadgets at the end of the day. I'd rather it was framed as an inconvenience argument, not a freedom one.

If you lived in the gilded age US you'd be saying this:

Admittedly, I have a hard time seeing it as a freedom issue, as these are just jobs that you are free not to work in at the end of the day. I'd rather it was framed as an inconvenience argument, not a freedom one.

If you lived in an Islamic theocracy you'd be saying this:

Admittedly, I have a hard time seeing it as a freedom issue, as these are just some extra bits of clothing that women must wear at the end of the day. I'd rather it was framed as an inconvenience argument, not a freedom one.

If you lived in Soviet Russia you'd be saying this:

Admittedly, I have a hard time seeing it as a freedom issue, as these are just some paper pamphlets at the end of the day. I'd rather it was framed as an inconvenience argument, not a freedom one.

You sir, are a sheep. You fully deserve that label.

Re:"Freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what is crippling Linux? Fucking Gnome. I was excited to use Ubuntu after living with version 10 for a while. So downloaded the latest version and it has been a fucking suck-fest ever since. Shitty stupid bugs galore. It is to the point where I just rolled my eyes the other day and started shopping for a Windows 7 license because I needed to get some work done. Keyboard randomly cuts out, a problem know about for at least a year; no fix and no known solution. Mate, forget it, Gnome Desktop forget it, gnome classic (no effects), meh, it works usually. Click on Home, fucking VLC starts up and tries to add my entire home folder to the playlist. WTF? There is more, but too much to list. Ubuntu 10 with Gnome 2 was awesome. Jesus-God people.

Re:"Freedom"

[GameboyRMH]

See how hard some people work to defend the illusion of freedom that's being pulled over their eyes while *real* freedom is being strangled in a back alley?

Doesn't just apply to computers either...

Re:"Freedom"

[GameboyRMH]

Yeah you'll probably be able to buy an Open Computer Kit from SparkFun or some little 3-man company in Europe.

The future of computing is bright indeed!

Re:"Freedom"

[GameboyRMH]

and there are good chances you will be unable to replace the bootloader anyway (I can imagine them using ROMs instead of flash).

"Oh don't worry, you'll still be able to open the device and solder in an aftermarket reflashable bootloader chip, no need to panic Chicken Little!" - Curated computing fansheep, 2014

Re:"Freedom"

[rtb61]

Consumer rights versus software company greed.

Does M$ have the right to brick someones computer because that person wants to load a different operating system?
Does M$ have the right to enforce breaking someone's computer completely because a root kit of any description has been installed by any means?
Does M$ have the right to force the majority of non-computer technical skill to spend hundreds of dollars on 'repairs' because M$ has secretly embedded the ability to brick their computer.
Does M$ have the right to permanently break hardware because of looping secure boot errors?
Does M$ have the right to prevent consumers from turning retail machines into budget Linux file servers?

The question here is whether government based consumer protection organisation will allow M$ to dictate what is down to the hardware the consumer has paid for and has very limited range of choice in purchasing. How much will M$ be about to force onto consumer's with get consumer organisations to strike back in order to protect consumer rights.

Re:"Freedom"

[sglewis100]

Yup. There are totally no tablets on the market. Windows 8 ARM tablets haven't shipped yet, but since they are a monopoly like you say, that means there are no tablets on the market. There's no choice. Now that WebOS is dead, Microsoft officially has no competition in tablets. Please don't mention Apple, Asus, Samsung, Toshiba, Amazon, Barnes and Noble, RIM, Acer, Motorola, Sony, Fujitsu, Lenovo, Archos, Pandigital, Velocity Micro Cruz, Kobo, Advent, AOC, Augen, Coby, Entourage, ViewSonic, Vizio, a few dozen other players marketing rebranded tablets, and about 500 different brands of Chinese imports. Microsoft cannot possibly have a monopoly in an industry with a hundred competitors, a single company with 3/4 of the marketshare (Apple), and multiple operating systems available. PS: Do you know how many Android tablets are locked? Plus iPad and PlayBook come locked too.

Re:"Freedom"

[b4dc0d3r]

You are free to not buy the product if it does not suit your needs. If a market for non-certified an unlocked devices springs up, some company will fill in the gap. If the market is too small, you have the freedom to start one.

I am all for using things as you see fit, but I'm also all for a market that provides things that people want to buy. If you don't want it, dn't buy it, and be sure to ask the businesses if they will sell an unlocked version. Either they will get the hint and you win, or you will get the hint and you lose.

The fight has always been about informing sheeple about their options, and Stallman has been flogging the same horse for decades. Know what you are buying, what your options are, and why you might want something more open that's out there. I have a locked HTC device, but I knew going in that I had an unofficial option to unlock it, and now HTC is providing an official unlocker. I made the choice and supported the company. If you get your uninformed friends to see the value, by rooting your device and showing what they can't do, they might come to understand as well.

If they don't see your point, there's no reason for the manufacturer to care either.

Re:"Freedom"

[b4dc0d3r]

The problem is, if you allow people the option, someone will figure out how to get around it. There will be security holes and patches and more holes and patches. Even if it's something as silly as the PS2 hack which loaded an invalid font file from a memory card.

Microsoft is taking the route everyone has been pushing them down for years - secure operating system. Not the best way to do it, but effective. Maybe you can flash your way around it, maybe you can't. If people want the security, they will buy it. If they want flexibility, they won't.

Re:"Freedom"

[Hognoxious]

But there won't be, because if someone does that MS will put out a storm of FUD the likes of which have never been seen before.

Only genuine approved machines are safe from communist pediadiddlers who will empty your bank account and pirate your car!

Re:"Freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, my single sale means little when others, in aggregate, will buy millions and tens of millions of them. This really is something that needs to be tackled through legislation. A boycott will be entirely unsuccessful simply because of the characteristics of the market.

Re:"Freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow you didn't even bother reading the post you just replied to did you?

Re:"Freedom"

[Hognoxious]

I do not see how such a requirement amounts to an abuse of monopoly status -- there IS no monopoly status in this market segment.

When you use your power in one segment to apply undue leverage in another that's still monopoly abuse.

Courts on both sides of the Atlantic came to that conclusion.

Re:"Freedom"

[Hognoxious]

How can they control who buys Windows?

FFS, they sell it. That means they can arbitrarily decide not to sell it. Got red hair? No Windows for you, ginger bastard!

Re:"Freedom"

[pclminion]

Courts on both sides of the Atlantic came to that conclusion

Good, so we're protected from that happening again. If they try to pull something, it should be open and shut. Right?

Re:"Freedom"

[jc42]

How about just selling the machines "blank" like we'e been begging for for years?

Um, the whole point of this discussion is the new tablets that come with a boot loader that explicitly disallows anything but approved Microsoft OSs. If a "blank" machine were included in the specs for this new tablet, we wouldn't be talking about how to overpower the MS-only boot loader (flash? ROM? dunno.) and install what we want.

One of the things that helped development in the computer industry was the appearance of "commodity" desktops back in the 1980s. Granted, most of these were sold with Microsoft OSs, but developers could ignore that, reformat the disks, and install anything they wanted to develop software on. If they screwed things up too badly, they could reformat and reinstall, possibly with a different OS. Development labs everywhere routinely reformatted and reinstalled on their test machines on a near-daily basis, because it was quick and easy.

The story here is that MS is using their market clout to try to eliminate this sort of independent development in the "commodity" tablet market. Saying that the hardware vendors should "just sell" a blank tablet is missing the main point, which is that MS it trying to enforce contracts that forbid this, and require a boot loader that only permits MS software.

And the main question is: What can we developers to about it? Cheap, commodity hardware is really useful if you want to make a successful startup that can sell new products at competitive prices. Allowing the Big Guy in the software business to forbid this puts a serious entry barrier to new software businesses.

Of course, the "hacker" community will probably provide fixes for the problem ...

Re:"Freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

But it's not about you, it's about "John Doe" that has no idea that he's going to be paying a whole lot more for a tablet that has a Windows sticker on it than he would have for a tablet that didn't but would still do everything he needs it to do. In the end it's the Microsoft logo and marketing that wins. Look at netbooks for the end result (and the funny part is that I can get a full laptop for the same price as a netbook now, and I can't get a Linux netbook from a local store at all).

Re:"Freedom"

[Hognoxious]

If they haven't learned anything, then possibly. But I think even Baldymer is smarter than that.

Doesn't do anything to disprove my point though - that the segment where the abuse is happening might be different (albeit related) to the one where the monopoly is.

Re:"Freedom"

[Hognoxious]

Apple sell their own software on their own hardware. Microsoft are trying to impose restrictions (namely, that the hardware will only run their software) on third parties.

It's the difference between me pushing you off a bridge and you jumping.

Re:"Freedom"

[Darinbob]

It would be nice if the consumer didn't have to resort to visiting shady sites in order to get the work arounds.

Re:"Freedom"

[sjames]

I see it everywhere, including all over /.. I can't claim to understand it, but I see it.

It would almost be funny if it wasn't so harmful to our society.

Re:"Freedom"

[exomondo]

MS isn't buying or selling computers. So, no, they aren't.

Are they in a contract with hardware manufacturers? Yes. Are these manufacturers adhering to specifications set out by microsoft for microsoft devices? Yes.

Re:"Freedom"

[exomondo]

Yeah you'll probably be able to buy an Open Computer Kit from SparkFun or some little 3-man company in Europe.

A niche catering to a niche, sounds logical.

Re:"Freedom"

[exomondo]

No, but they are known to kill THEMSELVES during jainbreaks.

They don't even exist yet, how can they be 'know to' do something if they don't exist?

Re:"Freedom"

[exomondo]

Apple's computers are wide open for any OS to be installed.

So are x86 PCs.

The tablets/phones are locked down but it is their own hardware. They aren't bullying other companies into selling their hardware the Apple way. That's the difference.

You mean the hardware these companies are explicitly building for Windows 8? Just like the hardware Foxxcon explicitly builds for Apple.

Re:"Freedom"

[exomondo]

FFS, they sell it. That means they can arbitrarily decide not to sell it. Got red hair? No Windows for you, ginger bastard!

You never followed much of the Microsoft anti-trust trial did you? One of the key elements of the final order that handed down was that MS was to sell Windows licenses to OEMs on a non-discriminatory basis.

Re:"Freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

Big difference between apple and Microsoft, apple is a hardware vendor so it is not cutting deals with other hardware manufacturers.

Im sure it would be quite alright for foxcon to sell ipads running android, apple isnt cutting any deals with them to stop them are they.

Microsoft on the other hand is, when it comes to PCs Microsoft can do closed door deals with the hardware manufacturers saying "if you don't allow linux to be put on your devices, we'll give you windows for 50% off".

Microsoft can do secret deals but Apple or Google could not possibly do that, despite the fact that their tablets also use locked boot loaders. You know, cos theyre just such nice companies.

Because they hold a monopoly on the hardware market, a PC manufacturer can't turn this down

But tablet manufacturers can, MS has nothing in the tablet market, market preference is mostly for an ipad!

Re:"Freedom"

[exomondo]

This is true, but it prevents people from discovering a new (and possibly/probably/definitely better) operating system, which is anticompetitive because in order for a market to be competitive the consumer has to know about alternatives and choose the best one.

That's exactly the same as with the ipad and any android tablet with a locked bootloader.

This would prevent people from going outside the Windows camp, unless, of course, they wanted to join the Apple camp.

What's wrong with the Android camp?

I don't have a problem with that because Apple does not dictate what other manufacturers do with their devices (patent bullshit aside)

Ok so if MS were to say to the hardware manufacturers (just like apple does to theirs) 'we're going to contract you to build these devices'? That would make it all ok?

whereas Microsoft, due to their monopoly position, can choose to not allow hardware vendors to ship Windows certified tablets

Google can (and does) choose not to allow hardware vendors to ship Google-certified tablets too, they don't have to certify and put their name to devices that don't conform to their standards. Apple doesn't either, in fact they choose not to certify anyone.

Re:"Freedom"

[GameboyRMH]

And you really don't see a problem with it. You deserve what you're doing to yourself.

Re:"Freedom"

[exomondo]

And you really don't see a problem with it.

Obviously logic dictates there's no problem with it.

Re:"Freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the justification behind this approach?
1) keeping malware out?
2) preventing use of unlicensed copies?
3) locking in the user?
4) killing an opportunity for competition?

Keeping something bad from replacing an OS is desirable, but most of that security could come from a small physical write-enable switch somewhere that only a local user can flip. And I don't mean a switch read by software. I mean one directly wired to the hardware write line controls for the chip involved. Anything built in to verify signatures could and should have an advisory role only, leaving the user in control.

Is any PC secure if it has flash memory in it or the peripherals that doesn't have write access locked down? Of course with hidden debug modes and code activated clock-ups for CPUs, there's still reason to distrust the hardware. It's time that users have full documentation/source access and modification rights to EVERYTHING they own, never having less access than any vendor or third party, and full disclosure as to what access others have.

G_41D89A

Re:"Freedom"

[lpq]

So, -- Why not sell
WinTablet Supreme V1.0 - certified, and restricted, ..

Then after it's on the market, sell WinTable Supreme V1.0.1, the uncertified version?

Re:"Freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

[citation needed]

lol...the question was about where to buy something that doesn't exist, the answer was always expected to be an assumption based on sales of the current version otherwise the asker of the question is an idiot since there can be no concrete answer given the product in question is non-existent. you then ask for citation? are you a complete imbecile? how do you provide citation for the sales locations of something which does not exist? do you not know the meaning of the word 'citation'?

Re:"Freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

By the time the transition is done, you may notice that all you can purchase is a subscription to use your tablet.

You may notice a lot of things, but that certainly wouldn't make any sense whatsoever. You may notice tablets are given away free by companies like Apple so you use their exclusive content services like iTunes.

The tablet itself may be prohibitively expensive

You know pigs might fly too, but of course nothing supports that.

This will discourage casual hacking or jailbreaking. It'll be like the good old days of leasing your phone from the phone company. The "desktop" may turn into a developer only tool, much like the console (XBox, Playstation, etc.) developer machines you can buy for around $10K *if* you qualify.

Oh yes because things like the Raspberry Pi just won't exist, all these open foundations will fold and all the manufacturers will be a price-fixing cartel.

2) The rise of Linux was enabled by the abundance of cheap hardware originally meant for the 'WinTel' platform.

Just like devices of today like the Raspberry Pi.

3) Apple is a genuine OEM (in that they manufacture both hardware and software and sell you a complete device). There is much less of a need to replace the software

Standard apple fanboy, there is less of a need to replace apple software than there is microsoft software.

Anything you buy with Windows on it is a much less integrated solution.

Wrong, it's exactly just as integrated.

4) Most importantly, we'd like to be able to run *FREE* software on commodity hardware.

Again, Raspberry Pi and countless chinese tablet devices. Oh but you want the brand name ones don't you.

the free market will NOT spawn a sizable open source hardware industry

No shit, and it never has, i'll bet pretty much all your hardware is closed. No-one is stopping anyone from doing it, the reason it hasn't been done is that it is not profitable to do so.

There *may* be one or two tablets which allow free software in a locked down world

What you can't run free software on an ipad? or Android? or Windows Phone? You clearly haven't tried.

You should *want* the freedom to run your own software, even if you choose not to at this moment.

I have that freedom, not only are there a myriad of devices to choose from but i can even run free software on the more locked down platforms.

Re:"Freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

Alas, the realtor strong-armed the builders. They ALL have those 'features', so it's that or live in the gutter.

Well in that case it just lost any relevance to the ARM tablet market, MS can't stop manufacturers from building non-MS ARM tablets.

Re:"Freedom"

[sjames]

You mean other than by what they're doing now setting up so the manufacturer can either offer Windows 8 or allow other OSes?

Re:"Freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok so if MS were to say to the hardware manufacturers (just like apple does to theirs) 'we're going to contract you to build these devices'? That would make it all ok?

Note how Apple contracts a lot of hw firms to build Apple iPads. LCD, CPUs, final assembly - all different companies, but all paid in full by Apple to make Apple iPad.

So yes, if MS was to contract a lot of firms to build MicroSoft(tm) ZuneTab(tm) from motherboard to the last screw, they would be a hardware vendor and free to do whatever with their own hardware. But right now they dictate "make it incompatible" to other hardware vendors.

Re:"Freedom"

[peawormsworth]

The anti trust issues arise from the outrageous limitations that Microsoft puts on their software license. I mean the fact that they do not sell the operating system to u allows them to claim that u cannot move the operating system to a new PC or make copies, install to a new hard drive, add remove components, etc, etc. The computer hardware is not sold this way. You purchase it. As a result the two items are completely separate purchases. The first is the computer u own, and the second is the operating system you lease a license to use under limited rights. Too force a consumer to buy both in order to get just one is a serious anti trust issue. The current EULAs you agree to on first use after purchase specifically states that u r entitled to a refund of the MS operating system if u choose to reject it. But usually the computer vendor will not honor this. This is what happened to me after I purchased a Hewlett Packard Netbook with Microsoft OS pre-installed. I read through the agreement which entitled me to a refund, so I never accepted the license. But when I called HP for a software refund, they declined and insisted I return the entire purchase. I find it funny that these companies (such as Hewlett Packard) will hold u to the fire if u do not honor ur part of the EULA, but at the same time, they dont even bother to honor the portions of the agreement defining wat they say they will do. Let me repeat this: Hewlett Packard for one will not honor the EULA agreement they provide to their customers. Because they did not do this for me. In fact after calling and calling and sighting portions of their EULA to their support staff an agent said to me: "You will never get a refund from us". Directly contradicting what Hewlett Packard wrote in the EULA they expected me to honor. After one full year of not using the hard drive in hopes to get my refund... I finally totally overwrote the hard drive and wiped off the crappy Microsoft Operating System they put on their. I never used the MS operating system because there are so many viruses and weaknesses and the netbook version they put on was limited and required additional money just to make it function like a normal operating system. Fortunately, I am running this PC with a strong fully encrypted and free Linux operating system. I guess my point is that it would be an anti trust issue if they do not offer the computer without the operating system, but apparently they just dont care and will probably do it anyways... because there is nobody out there standing up for consumer rights. Because there is a large portion of consumers who dont even understand that there is an option for operating systems and they also dont know that they are paying money for the one that comes for "free" on the PC they just purchased.

Re:"Freedom"

[thetoadwarrior]

Foxconn is one company that builds hardware that is tied to the success or failure of Apple in that market. Windows is one company forcing something on many companies some of which may fail despite Microsoft's success because they aren't a supplier to Microsoft, they're a customer. It's a huge difference.

Re:"Freedom"

[bryanbuckley]

You know you are posting in a thread of linux geeks when all the responses are inline.

Re:"Freedom"

[DarwinSurvivor]

I DID in fact read it. Most of the arguments showing that offering alternatives cost money (support training, images, testing, etc) become completely irrelevant when the machine is sold bare. The only relevant one is the confusion on the part of customers, but changing the wording from "Comes with linux, may not be compatible with other software" to "Does not include windows, operating system must be purchased or acquired separately" would bring those numbers to near zero. Customers already understand that tax software, word processing (other than the short trial), etc need to be purchased (or otherwise acquired) separately and "windows" would simply become another item on that list.

Re:"Freedom"

[DarwinSurvivor]

When you mentioned "jaibreaking deaths that occured" sarcastically, I assumed you were talking about Android/iOS/winCE devices that already do just that.

Re:"Freedom"

[Hognoxious]

final order that handed down was that MS was to sell Windows licenses to OEMs on a non-discriminatory basis

And yet they're planning to do the exact opposite: a first class treatment with certifiication and approval for vendors who lock out other OSs, and second class (or nothing) for those who don't kowtow.

Re:"Freedom"

[Barbariandude]

Alas, the realtor strong-armed the builders. They ALL have those 'features', so it's that or live in the gutter.

Really ? Because I could have sworn there's these two other builders in town...

One of those builders doesn't allow you to walk in your front lawn, period. You get arrested if you do that. The other one is in the process of being strong-armed, and will probably end up costing twice the price of the houses with those 'features'.

Re:"Freedom"

[exomondo]

Foxconn is one company that builds hardware that is tied to the success or failure of Apple in that market. Windows is one company forcing something on many companies some of which may fail despite Microsoft's success because they aren't a supplier to Microsoft, they're a customer. It's a huge difference.

Windows isn't a company, and they aren't forcing anything on to anyone. No-one has to build a Windows 8 certified tablet and moreover no-one even needs to build a Windows 8 tablet at all.

Re:"Freedom"

[exomondo]

And yet they're planning to do the exact opposite: a first class treatment with certifiication and approval for vendors who lock out other OSs, and second class (or nothing) for those who don't kowtow.

Wrong, this 'first class treatment' you speak of is simply their branding, just like google only offers their branding and applications to those who adhere to their specs. There is absolutely no reason a company should have to offer their brand to another company's products and of course that has nothing to do with licensing the software anyway, the certification is a separate issue.

Re:"Freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean other than by what they're doing now setting up so the manufacturer can either offer Windows 8 or allow other OSes?

They can do both, retard. But your tin-foil-hat seems to prevent you from understanding that.

Re:"Freedom"

[exomondo]

Note how Apple contracts a lot of hw firms to build Apple iPads. LCD, CPUs, final assembly - all different companies, but all paid in full by Apple to make Apple iPad.

And Microsoft is doing the same, just one level above, to companies like Samsung to build 'Designed for Windows 8' tablets, these companies wouldn't be building these devices if Microsoft hadn't asked them to, hence the reason such devices do not exist now.

But right now they dictate "make it incompatible" to other hardware vendors.

You make it sound like these vendors have no choice, which is completely 100% false. There is no reason they have to make a Windows 8 device and there's certainly no reason they have to make a 'Designed for Windows 8' device, in fact they could just sell the device with no OS and advertise the OSes it is capable of running or sell it with Android or another OS and advertise it as being Windows 8 -compatible (doing this of course is perfectly acceptable in trademark law, hence the reason not all Android devices have to be Google-certified, only if they want that branding).

Re:"Freedom"

[sjames]

Well you're a double doody head!

Clearly you have no grasp of MS's history with PSs.

Re:"Freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

They _Could_ have a optional EFI download that disabled secure boot.... if you could install it

OR

get a Signed LILO or GRUB type bootloader!

Re:"Freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly you have no grasp of MS's history with PSs.

I do, obviously more than you, did MS stop companies selling Linux-based PCs? No, but then if you'd had a grasp of PC history you would know that. Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc... all sold Linux and Windows PCs at some point (some still do) and the ones that no longer do Linux is because noone wanted them.

Want an even more current example? Look at Windows Phone, MS didn't stop companies like Samsung or HTC from selling devices with other operating systems like Android.

So with that brief history lesson your tin-foil-hat conspiracy bullshit looks even more ridiculous.

Re:"Freedom"

[sjames]

Funny, the boxen from major vendors with Linux on them tend to cost more than the very same hardware with Windows somehow. It's also fairly uncommon even on servers where Linux is very much a popular option. It's noteworthy that MS has been CONVICTED several times in multiple countries for unethical business practices in that area. My assertion is a matter of record.

If you want to believe a three time loser that says he doesn't know how your flatscreen came to be in his living room, fine.

As for the Phones, MS has a very weak bargaining position there, so they can't use their usual strongarm tactics.

Re:"Freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, the boxen from major vendors with Linux on them tend to cost more than the very same hardware with Windows somehow.

Wrong again. Once more you demonstrate your failed recollection and need a history lesson:
So it turns out that not including Windows saves the consumer $50 from the regular list price. This amount is not too far off from what a large OEM like Dell would pay for a volume discount for Windows Vista Home Basic

The fact that you can't remember is excusable, but then you go and claim to remember and don't even bother using google to find out that you're wrong.

It's also fairly uncommon even on servers where Linux is very much a popular option.

More unsubstantiated crap.

It's noteworthy that MS has been CONVICTED several times in multiple countries for unethical business practices in that area.

Of course, and as we've seen orders handed down and action has been taken, what would be the point of such convictions and orders if nothing got done about them? What's noteworthy is that there has been reform in the wake of these convictions as demonstrated by the availability - at a reduced cost - of linux side-by-side with windows on PCs, it's just that it turned out nobody wanted linux.

My assertion is a matter of record.

As above you can see your assertion is a demonstration of failure to recall history correctly.

As for the Phones, MS has a very weak bargaining position there, so they can't use their usual strongarm tactics.

How is their bargaining position in arm phones any different from in arm tablets? They're targeting the same manufacturers. Any manufacturers who don't want those restrictions but still want the certification are likely to go to x86, which actually has some relevance to desktop windows as it can run the applications, unlike windows on arm which is as compatible with desktop windows as windows phone is.

Re:"Freedom"

[sjames]

Wow, I didn't know the human stomach could hold that much cool aid. You ACTUALLY believe that a serial offender reformed? Even though there are currently rumblings of further prosecutions? Even while tacitly admitting that prior to prosecution, they did indeed block the availability of pre-installed Linux? And at the same time you forget that parolees tend to be on best behavior for a while until the extra scrutiny dies down.

And I remember quite well. I still have the never used windows materials in a folder.

As for phones vs. tablets, the phones are a more established market with dozens of vendors and hundreds of phones to choose from. Tablets are barely getting started and more closely resemble a PC (I said more closely, not clones of!).

Re:"Freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I didn't know the human stomach could hold that much cool aid. You ACTUALLY believe that a serial offender reformed?

There is clear evidence of it, so yes. How much anti-MS kool-aid can you be drinking when your baseless conspiracy theories overtake real factual proof: After that litigation and the ruling, OEMs began selling linux desktops and they were priced the same minus the MS license. Something i've already proved you wrong on, yet you persist with it anyway, i suppose your inability to correctly recall history would cause that.

Even while tacitly admitting that prior to prosecution, they did indeed block the availability of pre-installed Linux?

They did, then they were disciplined, and now they don't. The system worked, you might need take off that tin-foil hat to see it.

And at the same time you forget that parolees tend to be on best behavior for a while until the extra scrutiny dies down.

While MS maintains a monopoly they will never be free from scrutiny.

And I remember quite well.

Obviously not, otherwise you wouldn't have been so stupid to have made assertions that directly contradict proven facts.

As for phones vs. tablets, the phones are a more established market with dozens of vendors and hundreds of phones to choose from. Tablets are barely getting started and more closely resemble a PC (I said more closely, not clones of!).

So now it's not just history you're having trouble with, it's the present reality that you're incapable of seeing correctly. Tablets FAR more closely resemble phones than PCs, the form factor is almost identical, just larger and the OSes available (iOS, Android, webOS) are derivative of phone OSes. And in the tablet market they are manufactured mostly by those who also do smartphones based on the same technology that aren't necessarily PC-focused manufacturers (Samsung, HP, Apple, HTC, Motorola, etc...).

What you seem to once again need a history lesson in is that tablets as a derivative of PCs failed monumentally (see the XP and Windows 7 tablets) however tablets as a derivative of smartphones have been widely successful (see iOS and Android).

Note:

[Anonymous Coward]

This will be the last story we post today until 6pm EST in protest of SOPA... or not..

Re:Note:

[bonch]

When Wikipedia's blackout is over, look up timezones.

Re:Note:

[BitterOak]

Ummm. It was posted at 6:14 PM EST.

Re:Note:

[Adult film producer]

Yep... for slashdot to choose 6 PM EST shows their true colors. They really don't give a damn about SOPA/PIPA. The west coast hasn't even come home from work yet.... Weak.

Re:Note:

[Anonymous Coward]

Or look at google's cached page now:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:D9ELHvdpvqcJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_zone

Re:Note:

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody cares about the west coast.

Re:Note:

[geminidomino]

Or just turn off/Noscript javascript.

Simple solution

[NeoTron]

Don't purchase any of these ARM powered devices which run Windows 8.

Re:Simple solution

[drinkypoo]

Simple, yes; solution, not so much. One of the wonders of Linux is its use as a windows replacement. This is an attempt to prevent that. Sure, if you bought something with Android you ought to be able to run a non-Android Linux sooner or later, but that's not nearly as important as being able to toss Windows over for it.

Re:Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

You solution is this; If you don't like what they have offered you, design your own hardware and commission it to be built.

If the maker of the tablet wants to lock it to windows or android, they have that right. If you don't like their choices buy something else or do as I have suggested above.

Re:Simple solution

[taniwha]

Oh no - you should purchase them .... but them return them because they don;t work with Linux

Re:Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

That only works when the Linux community is a significant portion of the anticipated consumer base, and I'd be willing to bet we aren't.

Re:Simple solution

[kj_kabaje]

come on mods!! That's funny. :-)

Re:Simple solution

[Techmeology]

Unfortunately, most consumer hardware (at least when it comes to complete systems) comes somewhat paired with software (such as the OS). Have you ever tried buying a laptop without an OS installed (or with Linux as that OS)? How about a tablet without either Android (and no official way of installing your own distro) or Windows?

Re:Simple solution

[viperidaenz]

Then be told to go home because that's not a valid reason to return it? Unless they told you it was compatable with Linux before you bought it.

Re:Simple solution

[Nerdfest]

Almost as important is telling everyone you know that they should not buy one either.

Re:Simple solution

[drinkypoo]

If you don't like their choices buy something else or do as I have suggested above.

If you don't like addressing me civilly. go fuck yourself or do as I will suggest below.

Go fuck yourself twice.

There's no reason why I should suck it up and accept what the manufacturer of the device wants. That's loser talk.

Re:Simple solution

[Shompol]

You solution is this; If you don't like what they have offered you, design your own hardware and commission it to be built.

Only to end up in the history books, like BEOS did. What basically happened is MS approached the "commissioned party" and asked them to stop or lose the Windows business. Yes, leveraging a monopoly is sweet.

Re:Simple solution

[imboboage0]

Since you're not into this 'loser talk,' might I ask what you plan to do? It's interesting that you think just because you are a consumer, you can tell manufacturers what to build.

THEY do the design. THEY do the build. THEY sell it. YOU choose to buy it, or not. That's it.

Re:Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless they told you it was compatable with Linux before you bought it.

That's neither a valid reason... remember the PS3?

Re:Simple solution

[jd]

Ah, yes, I can see it now. The battle cry "a soldering iron in every kitchen, a microchip in every pot"!

Aside from the overheads in building a one-off (multiply all costs by ten, divide all compatibility by a hundred, mutilate all certification beyond recognition), the extraordinary difficulty in building a tablet (not exactly a tower unit, is it?) and the problems with vendors (you want to order what from Intel? To them, you are nothing and no-one), you've still got the smallish problem that perhaps 0.0001% of the population has the time, inclination, money or incentive to run a DIY shop merely to be able to run Linux versus something else.

Linux could have ruled the world a decade ago, but for such mantras.

Re:Simple solution

[jd]

Ah yes, Microsoft Refund Day Take 2. You do remember how well that worked the last time? The fact that the media made us to look like fools? The fact that Linux declined in popularity at that time because we were made out to be a bunch of morons?

Re:Simple solution

[NeoTron]

I bought an android tablet. A Barnes&Noble Nook Color.

Before I bought it, it was merely a nice eBook reader in tablet form.

Before I bought it, I made sure I'd be able to install my preferred version of android.

After I bought it, I then installed CyanogenMod on it.

My eBook reader is now a very nice Android tablet.

My point is, I made sure the hardware could be bent to my will beforehand.

That Windows 8 ARM device? Oh it won't boot an alternate OS? Fuck 'em, they just lost a purchase.

Re:Simple solution

[NeoTron]

Well, y'know, not every single device is suddenly going to be marketed with Windows 8.

I'll never purchase a device running windows 8 anyway - just as I've never bought a device from Apple.

Re:Simple solution

[SeaFox]

No, he's being serious. If you buy then and then return them opened, the store can't resell them as brand new and lose money.

Re:Simple solution

[drinkypoo]

THEY do the design. THEY do the build. THEY sell it. YOU choose to buy it, or not. That's it.

No, that is not it. There's a zillion ways to get in and make the hardware do what the manufacturer never intended. Secure boot? Bring on JTAG (for the reflash) and coreboot (to replace the evil BIOS.) Or, of course, some other scheme. Losers choose to buy it, or not, that's it. Winners go home and fuck the prom queen.

Re:Simple solution

[Shifty0x88]

Unless they told you it was compatable with Linux before you bought it.

That's neither a valid reason... remember the PS3?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH =D Ahhh.... and we all got screwed for it.... what happened with that lawsuit again?!?! Oh yeah... nothing...

Re:Simple solution

[lophophore]

Thank you for saving me the time to write this. Vote with your feet, don't buy that crap.

Who is Microsoft, anyway? Are they relevant any more?

Re:Simple solution

[c]

> Don't purchase any of these ARM powered devices which run Windows 8.

Have you tried recently to buy a netbook which doesn't have some flavour of Windows installed?

That's the situation people are worried about. Microsoft flexing its muscles (and presumbly leveraging all those Android patent agreements) and basically pushing everything else out of the ARM tablet market. Granted, Android is entrenched enough that it'll take longer than it did with netbooks, but I have no doubt about their goals.

Re:Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

ha ha ha ha. you see the clay ipad article above

Re:Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

And hence, the store will reject the return, and tell you to contact the manufacturer instead.

Re:Simple solution

[bemymonkey]

So out the window with my hopes of a full-blown MS Office device (including OneNote and an active digitizer!) with a 10" screen, 12 hour battery and 1/4 the weight of my Thinkpad tablet?

Booooooooooo!

Re:Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

1 - Buy a "Built for MS 8" device
2 - Return the device to the store on the grounds that you did not accept MS licensing terms that were presented to you at first boot (or found within the retail box).
3 - Find another store
4 - Go back to 1

Re:Simple solution

[CadentOrange]

So your solution is to drive retailers out of business in order to strike at manufacturers? Talk about collateral damage...

Re:Simple solution

[CadentOrange]

> Don't purchase any of these ARM powered devices which run Windows 8.

Have you tried recently to buy a netbook which doesn't have some flavour of Windows installed?

It's still possible to buy netbooks without Windows pre-installed. Heck, it's possible to buy ARM based netbooks. I bought one two months ago from these guys (http://www.genesi-usa.com/).

Re:Simple solution

[PhilHibbs]

Do we not have the right to talk about what we want in our purchases?

Re:Simple solution

[SeaFox]

Retailers sell more than a single product, last time I checked. e_e Certain other tablet products have flopped majorly without anyone going out of business.

The result will be retailers will stop buying new inventory because of the returns and percentage of "open box" merchandise they'll have to deal with. Plus, it sends the clear message the product is not what the public wants, whereas not selling anything at all can be scapegoated on the popularity of a competing iDevice.

Re:Simple solution

[greap]

Monopoly? Microsoft has a 0% market share in tablets and 5.8% in mobile.

Re:Simple solution

[TheSpoom]

Which means the store will refuse the return. What, you think they can't do that?

Re:Simple solution

[imboboage0]

You, sir, are a grade A asshole. I'm not sure what you found so offensive about my post. Quite simply, even if you plan to circumvent it, you're still choosing to buy it. They win. They still got your money, they could give two fucks if you want to go through all that. And at the days end, most manufacturers will double fuck you by looking for ways to undo your circumvention if you're not careful.

I guess I shouldn't call you an asshole, you just detailed circumvention, then followed it up with saying anyone who buys it is a loser. :P Calm down and try to enjoy life for a minute. It's not the end of the world you know.

Re:Simple solution

[c]

> It's still possible to buy netbooks without Windows pre-installed.

Sure. It's also possible to bicycle from the east to the west coast. But effectively, bicycles don't exist in the "consumer" long-haul transportation market, just as Linux netbooks no longer really exist in the "consumer" netbook market.

Re:Simple solution

[SeaFox]

Not if you're not in violation of the store's own return policy.

Re:Simple solution

[drinkypoo]

I'm tired of people telling me I'm wrong and then attempting to prove it by making provably false statements.

I probably shouldn't let people get to me, though, just because they said something remarkably stupid.

Yes.

[iCEBaLM]

It Will.

WHAT?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

"What do you mean I can't put Linux on this Commodore Vic 20?!?! I'm outraged!!!!!"
get over yourself.

Re:WHAT?!?!

[forkfail]

Nice non sequitur.

Don't buy the incompatible hardware. Done.

[Vandil X]

When the incompatible hardware doesn't sell, the OEMs will hear you loud and clear.

Re:Don't buy the incompatible hardware. Done.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think /. comprises that much of the tablet market.

Re:Don't buy the incompatible hardware. Done.

[forkfail]

No, not really. Linux is a far smaller market share (the only place where it dominates is 'net servers, and server farms like Google's, Amazon's, etc).

The problem with this bit by bit elimination of Linux is that it makes it harder and harder to develop Linux; it is slowly but surely squeezing Linux out.

The OEM's will play along; that's where the lion's share of the money is. Linux will wither a bit more, despite being a better tool in certain applications.

And this won't be the final push to bind hardware to the Big Name Corporation software. If this is allowed to move forward, I'd give it a decade before you'll be able to only buy any computing device as effectively an embedded system; hardware and software, with no re-purposing.

Re:Don't buy the incompatible hardware. Done.

[jd]

Linux makes up 1% of the market, largely because we've tried to tell the industry to do things our way. It's a 1% that Microsoft can easily absorb, because ultimately geeks need paychecks as much as everyone else.

Re:Don't buy the incompatible hardware. Done.

[forkfail]

Note that's the desktop market.

Where Linux is strong (and very important) are the server farms of Facebook, Amazon and AWS, Google and such. All of those are Linux based. And those aren't counted into the desktop numbers that go to make up your over-cited 1% figure.

Another place not counted in your desktop 1% is research server farms, academic use, and so forth. There's an awful lot of distributed computing that gets done on Linux that MS cannot support.

So that 1% number really is rubbish.

Re:Don't buy the incompatible hardware. Done.

[jd]

Yes, but as server farms don't use tablets, you can ignore them for this purpose. Since Google uses cheap COTS solutions (as do most cloud providers), there's little incentive for them to upgrade to newer hardware, so you can ignore them even if you do want to include server farms. So you're still back to the 1% of people this effects in any practical sense.

What this really affects

[exomondo]

It seems to me this only affects a subset of devices that don't even yet exist. If what you want to do is run linux with virtual box and other assorted unsigned kernel modules then why would you be buying a 'Designed for Windows 8' ARM device? You wouldn't, just like you wouldn't buy an iPad to do those things. You would buy an x86 device, or an Android device, or an ARM device that is not 'Designed for Windows 8'.

Re:What this really affects

[forkfail]

Camel's nose, meet tent. Tent, meet Camel's nose.

Re:What this really affects

[ClioCJS]

Myopic.

Reminds me of when drug testing started to take hold in the 1970s - "If you don't want to drug test, you can choose to work at a job where you don't." Except generally, assholism comes with built-in scope creep. Now you can't get a job at Home Depot pushing carts without having machines inspect your personal fluids to determine your off-work behavior. The simply "if you don't like X, then go elsewhere" so-called 'solution' is a fallacy, and always has been. It's a way to avoid a problem; it does not fix anything, or prevent a problem from getting worse.

Another great example - "Don't like crime in this city? Move to another city." Or "Don't like the shitty laws here? Move to another country." {And when the countries of the world unite to form a cartel of shitty laws worldwide -- for instance ACTA -- they will be far harder to fight.}

Re:What this really affects

[exomondo]

Except that it's not like that at all, you don't buy a hammer if what you need is a screwdriver, just like you don't buy a device specifically designed for an operating system if you want to run a different operating system, you choose a different device. What sort of entitlement complex do you have when you get to the point of thinking companies have to build devices that are everything to everyone?

Re:What this really affects

[viperidaenz]

Where are the Camel toes?

Re:What this really affects

[viperidaenz]

People need jobs to live a good lifestyle. People don't need Designed for Windows 8 computing devices.

Re:What this really affects

[ClioCJS]

The same entitlement complex that those who enforce anti-trust laws have.

Also, whoosh. My point went over your head based on your metaphor that does not represent the situation at all.

A more apt metaphor would be: What if new devices started using proprietary screwdriver bits? Maybe they get a kickback from the screwdriver bit industry, or manufacture the bits themselves to pad their profit (remember the outrage when the iPhone changed its screws?). The "if you don't want that tool, buy another tool" metaphor simply does not work. You cannot use their tool because they have changed it to be less adaptable. People can buy phillips and flathead screwed devices 'til the cow comes home, but there's enough mindless consumers and people that it would not change the bottom line enough for $CORPORATION to change their ways. After another company sees the money they make, they start using proprietary screws too. Eventually, it becomes an industry trend. You can either shell out for the proprietary screwdriver, or use none of these devices. Either way, your unwillingness to go with a bullshit 'feature' does nothing to stop that bullshit from creeping into every device in existence; you merely stuck your head in the sand.

YOU actually come off as the entitled one here, except that you feel entitlement for the faceless corporations that are only interested in your money, rather than for yourself and your own freedom of market choice. You somehow feel that if they were forced to offer something that costs the same to make, but allows people greater freedom, that somehow this affects your livelihood or your "feelings" on what a corporation should be allowed to do. Unless you're a CEO yourself, you're simply loving to learn the taste of the boots you lick. In fact, simply boycotting a product does not make its shitty features go away. And corporations were originally only allowed to continue existing if they served the public good; otherwise they died a mandatory, automatic death sentence. (That is, before those same corporations and their cronies re-wrote the law so that they have more rights than actual people. Privatize profits, socialize losses, no death penalty if you're a corp, and if you're a CEO you can kill someone and not go to jail because you're deemed more important than others.)

I mean, imagine someone saying "if you don't like the fact that airbags can decapitate your baby, then don't get a car with airbags". Do you think that stopped them from coming? Now I am in danger of responding to your bad metaphor with another metaphor, but my point -- which still stands -- is that simply avoiding something you don't like does not make it go away.

It's not a "simple solution". It is neither simple, nor a solution. It is not simple to reduce your freedom of choice, and it is not a solution in any way, shape, or form. A solution solves a problem. The problem still exists. You've done nothing.

"Don't like wars over oil? Then don't buy gas!"

"Don't like abortions? Then don't have one!" (This is a trick example, as I *love* abortions. But to someone who thinks abortions represent a problem {which is not me} -- this 'solution' does not actually solve the 'problem'.)

"Don't like the encroachment of civil liberties in the name of the drug war? Then don't do drugs (alternate: move to another country)."

"Don't like cops tasering people? Then don't mouth off to cops!"

Anyone who thinks this attitude constitutes a solution has a major cognitive logic defect.

Re:What this really affects

[failedlogic]

-Clint
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)

"Want bad Karma? Then don't give a fuck!"

Sorry had to ... !!!! ;)

Re:What this really affects

[Darinbob]

They're going to put this on PCs if they can, bet on it.

Re:What this really affects

[exomondo]

Anyone who thinks this attitude constitutes a solution has a major cognitive logic defect.

Just like anyone who thinks those examples are analogous to this situation. This a device built for a specific purpose (to run Windows 8), if you want to run other operating systems then buy a device designed to do such things.

YOU actually come off as the entitled one here, except that you feel entitlement for the faceless corporations that are only interested in your money, rather than for yourself and your own freedom of market choice.

I do have freedom of market choice fool, no-one is changing that, if i want to run Android I'll buy a tablet that supports it, so not an iPad and Apple restricting the iPad to running iOS doesn't affect my freedom of choice.

Re:What this really affects

[ulricr]

it shouldn't remind you of any of these social issues, because we're only talking about electronic gadgets here. there are tons of gadgets or other items in stores to choose from, and many things you're not choosing to buy already because they are useless to you.

Re:What this really affects

[gknoy]

They might in ten years when everything you ever want to use (and all the hardware used by them) is built to conform to its specs.

Re:What this really affects

[jd]

People need jobs to live a good lifestyle.

Unfortunately, in modern work places, this ALSO means:

People do need Designed for Windows 8 computing devices.

Re:What this really affects

[viperidaenz]

If someone requires a specific device for their job the employer should own it. The user shouldn't be allowed to fuck around with it and should have to own it either. What's your point?

Re:What this really affects

[ClioCJS]

It does affect your freedom of choice - there are apps you can't run because you're unwilling to deal with Apple's restrictions. I managed to get around that by somebody giving me an old iPhone they don't want anymore - which is how I arrived at my grand list of the ways Android beats iPhone, and the 14 or so ways my wife's $130 phone beat the iPhone I have (which cost $600 when it came out, tho that was probably with some other included bullshit). And I have apps that cannot work on the Android phone.

If Apple bought up an equivalent market share of restaurants, then banned all tomatoes from them, your freedom of choice would be affected, even though you are free to go to a non-apple store. Freedom of choice doesn't mean that if you have one choice, 100% of your freedom is there. "Take a piss test or be homeless" isn't full freedom of choice either.

Re:What this really affects

[ClioCJS]

Hehe thanks :) My karma is actually excellent, but, y'know, I figured I'd join in the .signature posturing trend! :) :)

Re:What this really affects

[Microlith]

You certainly are aggresively defending Microsoft's actions here.

you don't buy a hammer if what you need is a screwdriver

No, but nothing is stopping me from using the hammer for whatever purposes I see fit.

just like you don't buy a device specifically designed for an operating system if you want to run a different operating system

None of these devices are specifically designed for Windows. Microsoft is simply requiring that vendors place onerous restrictions on what end users can do in exchange for being able to release a tablet with Windows 8 on it.

What sort of entitlement complex do you have when you get to the point of thinking companies have to build devices that are everything to everyone?

I love how the argument suddenly becomes an "entitlement complex" to people defending Microsoft. Simple fact is that this is a problem being created from whole cloth by Microsoft, to take away what we've had for decades while not truly making anyone more secure, but definitely hindering alternative operating system platforms.

Re:What this really affects

[exomondo]

It does affect your freedom of choice - there are apps you can't run because you're unwilling to deal with Apple's restrictions.

So everything in the world should be everything to everyone so everyone can do everything with anything so as not to restrict freedom of choice?

If Apple bought up an equivalent market share of restaurants, then banned all tomatoes from them, your freedom of choice would be affected

That's like saying my freedom of choice is affected because McDonalds won't make me a chicken parma! They don't have to cater to everyone and the fact that you aren't forced to go there is exactly that freedom of choice. I'm not forced to use Apple or Android or Windows.

Re:What this really affects

[visualight]

Or, 'Don't worry Trusted Computing is for banks and the NSA, it won't really affect you, it's not like it's one day going to be on everything.'

Re:What this really affects

[exomondo]

You certainly are aggresively defending Microsoft's actions here.

Aggressive? No. I'm just pointing out that there is obviously a choice here, and some people want everything their way.

No, but nothing is stopping me from using the hammer for whatever purposes I see fit.

Just like jailbreaking an iDevice :)

None of these devices are specifically designed for Windows.

Then why don't they already exist? Linux has existed for decades.

Microsoft is simply requiring that vendors place onerous restrictions on what end users can do in exchange for being able to release a tablet with Windows 8 on it.

In exchange for being able to put a 'Designed for Windows 8' sticker on it, no reason they can't leave that sticker off and do whatever they want or sell the device with Linux or with no OS at all.

I love how the argument suddenly becomes an "entitlement complex" to people defending Microsoft. Simple fact is that this is a problem being created from whole cloth by Microsoft, to take away what we've had for decades while not truly making anyone more secure, but definitely hindering alternative operating system platforms.

The alternatives are already there, the advent of Windows 8 isn't creating new alternatives. What's wrong with existing tablets, or x86 tablets or devices without that W8 sticker?

Re:What this really affects

[ClioCJS]

Yes. McDonalds not offering chicken would affect your freedom of choice in chicken. You would have fewer places to go for chicken and, depending on where you live, would have to trade more resources for an equal amount of chicken. (McDonald's is the closest "restaurant" to me, if they offer something, then revoke it, I spend more gas to go elsewhere, and that affects the resource management decisions on whether getting chicken is worth it.)

This is not a hard concept, but you seem to want to resist it rather than proceed with the next logical step of our discussion.

Freedoms aren't absolutes, they come in degrees and shades of grey, like almost everything on the planet. For example, when they say "now you can only protest in 1st amendment designated zones, not any public space", you still have freedom of speech, but it is limited. Limited is not the same as destroyed or non-existent, just like limited freedom of choice is not the same as having no choice.

If you can only think in black and white, you'll never be able to fathom any of these concepts (or many others).

You're not forced to take a drug test, either. Enjoy your freedom of choice in [retail, minimum-wage] employers.

I'm sorry you don't see the bigger picture, just get angry, and respond to my position of 'it does affect your freedom of choice' to the fallacious hyperbolic version that reads 'everything in the world should be everything to everyone'. I regret to inform you that strawman attacks do not constitute rational debate -- therefore this is not a discussion. When you want to actually have one, let me know. Future fallacious responses will likely be ignored, unless you say something incredibly stupid.

Re:What this really affects

[ClioCJS]

I'm glad somebody gets it. My original comment quickly got moderated to 5 (which is like.. a 1 in 200 comment thing for me), but man that other guy is up my ass about it. ;)

Re:What this really affects

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a device specifically crippled to not run anything else. It is perfectly capable of running Linux, BSD, or my very own cobbled together OS. There is a difference.

If MS had its way, every PC would be built to specifically run Windows, and would have trusted computing modules built in preventing said computer from running anything else.

While a tablet typically is more like a console than a PC, I don't want all my electronics consolized. The tablets / smart phones / and, yes, consoles are all powerful enough to be general use computers. Don't want to support my choice of OS? That's fine. Heck, want to say that I've voided my warranty by running my alternate OS of choice. I'm okay with that too.

I do not like the trend of everybody trying to lock everything with a chip in it down. I don't even like it with the iPad, but at least there that's one hardware manufacturer, even if it is a really popular one.

Re:What this really affects

[VortexCortex]

Except that it's not like that at all, you don't buy a hammer if what you need is a screwdriver, just like you don't buy a device specifically designed for an operating system if you want to run a different operating system, you choose a different device. What sort of entitlement complex do you have when you get to the point of thinking companies have to build devices that are everything to everyone?

So what you're saying is that the GENERAL PURPOSE COMPUTER is somehow specifically designed for only MS Windows? Pull your head out of the sand fool. The GENERAL PURPOSE COMPUTER that would otherwise be perfectly capable of booting Linux is to be restricted such that it won't boot anything but MS OSes. This is limiting end users choice by removing otherwise existing features. IT'S NOT GOOD FOR USERS.

If you think for one moment that this will remain an ARM only move, then you are sorely mistaken. This is MS testing the waters. If it helps them dominate the ARM platform you can bet your bottom dollar that they'll be rolling it out everywhere else.

Strong-arming OEMs is an established MS tactic. They make deals with say, Dell, where the OEM pays a license fee for every PC sold whether it's got Windows or Linux on it. Then there's no price benefit to having Linux freely installed, and when the customers DEMAND to be refunded the "Microsoft Tax", Dell stopped selling machines with Linux installed. Of course Dell and other MFGs don't have to agree to that type of deal with MS, but if they don't like it they don't get to pre-install Windows. Derp! Leveraging a Monopoly, How Dos It Werk!?!

I didn't buy a "screwdriver" when I needed a Hammer, but FYI, I HAVE used a Screwdriver to pound in finishing nails because my Hammer was on the other side of the jobsite. Your analogy is worse than you think, this is saying: Yeah you COULD use the Screwdriver to tack in nails, or as a small pry bar, or a chisel, but YOU WILL NOT DO SO, because we prevent that by needlessly weakening the tool. My old PC is now my Router & Security-Gateway. Re-purposing GENERAL PURPOSE TOOLS is common, especially with screwdrivers and computers. To me it seems you have foolishly bought into the cult of planned obsolescence.

I have an entitlement complex?!?! You, sir, have a mental deficiency disorder if you think GENERAL PURPOSE COMPUTING hardware should be RESTRICTED in such a way to allow ONLY ONE SET OF SOFTWARE to run on it. The issue here isn't if Secure Boot is good or bad, it's that MS is forcing OEMs to REMOVE THE FEATURE that lets end users install OR SERVICE THEIR HARDWARE with any but Microsoft's software.

You may want to find out more about The War for General Purpose Computing, since the first volley has been fired.

Re:What this really affects

[exomondo]

Yes. McDonalds not offering chicken would affect your freedom of choice in chicken. You would have fewer places to go for chicken and, depending on where you live, would have to trade more resources for an equal amount of chicken. (McDonald's is the closest "restaurant" to me, if they offer something, then revoke it, I spend more gas to go elsewhere, and that affects the resource management decisions on whether getting chicken is worth it.)

This is not a hard concept, but you seem to want to resist it rather than proceed with the next logical step of our discussion.

You want to force them to cater for whatever you want, the concept of a free market seems to elude you, why is that?

You're not forced to take a drug test, either. Enjoy your freedom of choice in [retail, minimum-wage] employers.

Hey they're restricting my freedom of choice because i choose to be a police officer and take LSD on the job!

I regret to inform you that strawman attacks do not constitute rational debate -- therefore this is not a discussion. When you want to actually have one, let me know. Future fallacious responses will likely be ignored, unless you say something incredibly stupid.

Standard response of a moron who fails to understand the concept of a free market and has an entitlement complex, by not agreeing with me you're restricting my freedom of choice, i choose to have you agree with me and you're restricting that! See how idiotic you're argument is.

Re:What this really affects

[bigstrat2003]

And when they do, it'll be worth caring about. Until then, as the GP pointed out, not being able to install Linux on a subset of devices that don't even exist yet will not "cripple Linux". It's hardly even news, considering how few would want to install Linux on a tablet.

Re:What this really affects

[ClioCJS]

>>This is not a hard concept, but you seem to want to resist it rather than proceed with the next logical step of our discussion. >You want to force them to cater for whatever you want, the concept of a free market seems to elude you, why is that?

I rest my case. You are unable to respond without equivocating one position as being a completely different one. When you can respond to what I'm actually saying, you might get a real response instead of a meta-analysis of your failure to be able to debate.

This may help you in the future: CHART

Re:What this really affects

[ClioCJS]

p.s. definition 1 a freedom - Yes. Constraints limit freedom. Observing this limitation is not the same as saying "the world should be redefined so this limitation doesn't exist" - a subtlety that you are wholly unable to grasp. You're basically stuck at the first post, unable to get past your whining about what you think it means, while unable to fathom the true meaning of the discussion.

Re:What this really affects

[exomondo]

So what you're saying is that the GENERAL PURPOSE COMPUTER is somehow specifically designed for only MS Windows?

No, im saying the computer that explicitly states that it is designed for MS Windows is designed for MS Windows, i mean it doesn't exist now even though alternative operating systems do.

Of course Dell and other MFGs don't have to agree to that type of deal with MS, but if they don't like it they don't get to pre-install Windows.

How much market share has windows got on ARM devices?

Your analogy is worse than you think, this is saying: Yeah you COULD use the Screwdriver to tack in nails, or as a small pry bar, or a chisel, but YOU WILL NOT DO SO, because we prevent that by needlessly weakening the tool.

So why'd you buy that tool then? Look at the success of the ipad, it shows that most consumers don't care and those that do care choose an alternative.

I have an entitlement complex?!?! You, sir, have a mental deficiency disorder if you think GENERAL PURPOSE COMPUTING hardware should be RESTRICTED in such a way to allow ONLY ONE SET OF SOFTWARE to run on it.

oh no, i can't install linux on my watch, or my refrigerator, or my ipad...the horror! if i want linux i buy a linux tablet, there are literally millions of them out there.

Re:What this really affects

[Anonymous Coward]

And if they can give PC manufacturers the go ahead to disable secure boot and still have the Windows 8 logo, I do not see why ARM should be different. It's just a lower powered general purpose CPU.

Re:What this really affects

[exomondo]

I rest my case. You are unable to respond without equivocating one position as being a completely different one.

Actually that's what you did with your first post. Your inability to understand the concept of a free market is why you're having so much trouble with this, you don't have the right to force someone to cater for your wants.

Re:What this really affects

[jd]

The world doesn't work via should, it works via is. If someone works in IT and is on-call, you can bet anything you like that they'll need their home hardware to run and support their work software and to hell with the should of things. The same is true of anyone telecommuting, or who otherwise needs to take work home with them. Their home environment has to be work-compatible.

Of course, you also need to consider that extremely few people like learning multiple OS'. I'm a freak in that I know lots, but I really AM a freak in that regard. If people use Windows 8 at work, they WILL use Windows 8 at home because "that is what they use". They won't think to do otherwise. More than a few, I suspect, are incapable of thinking otherwise. That is the way it has always been. The nicer alternatives, the better alternatives, the cleaner alternatives -- these don't exist for such people. The ones who pay the piper call the tune, which means the rest of us must live with their choices.

Re:What this really affects

[Eivind Eklund]

Anyone who thinks this attitude constitutes a solution has a major cognitive logic defect.

Just like anyone who thinks those examples are analogous to this situation. This a device built for a specific purpose (to run Windows 8), if you want to run other operating systems then buy a device designed to do such things.

But you're assuming a purpose that isn't there. The device is NOT built for the specific purpose of running Windows 8. It is built for the purpose of selling to the public; it just happens that the producer believe that in the choice between the sets "People that want one of these running Windows 8" and "People that want one of these not running Windows 8" the set "People wanting one of these running Windows 8" is larger. The producer would most likely happily go after the set "People that want one of these running either Windows 8 or something else", but Microsoft has blocked this avenue.

This is different from what Apple does - Apple sells a hardware/software combo, and choose to lock down their hardware. I don't particularly like that, but it's a different and in my opinion less evil thing than what MS is doing: Apple is not doing things to force a producer of hardware to lock down when the producer wouldn't want to.

Re:What this really affects

[ClioCJS]

Actually, we do have that right in certain situations - that's what anti-trust is. So, depending on the situation, people do have that right. Your attempt to simplify to tautology fails. Tons of counter-examples: Anti-pollution laws, anti-trust, homeowners' associations.

Re:What this really affects

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. McDonalds not offering chicken would affect your freedom of choice in chicken.

The fact that they don't offer spaghetti doesn't affect my choice in spaghetti dumbass.

Re:What this really affects

[exomondo]

Actually, we do have that right in certain situations - that's what anti-trust is. So, depending on the situation, people do have that right.

But not in this situation, just like we cannot force apple to allow other OSes on the ipad and that we can't force mcdonalds to sell spaghetti marinara. I understand your point but it isn't as though MS is going to be taking away anything that exists now, just like apple when they released the ipad.

Re:What this really affects

[viperidaenz]

I occasionally telecommute. I bring my work laptop home and connect via vpn. My work won't provide any support if I have problems connecting via my own broadband, they'll tell me to connect via the supported dialup modem built in to the laptop.

My wife isn't very technically literate but she has no problem using Windows XP at work and Windows Vista and Windows 7 at home. I doubt she would have a problem using Linux either - providing it has a web browser that can be opened by clicking an icon.

Re:What this really affects

[exomondo]

But you're assuming a purpose that isn't there. The device is NOT built for the specific purpose of running Windows 8.

Then why doesn't it already exist? If it isn't built for the specific purpose of running Windows 8 then it doesn't need Windows 8.

It is built for the purpose of selling to the public; it just happens that the producer believe that in the choice between the sets "People that want one of these running Windows 8" and "People that want one of these not running Windows 8" the set "People wanting one of these running Windows 8" is larger.

And what's wrong with that? Apple believes that most people want their device running iOS, even though it could easily run Android, and it seems that for the most part they are right.

The producer would most likely happily go after the set "People that want one of these running either Windows 8 or something else", but Microsoft has blocked this avenue.

They already do! Look at all the ARM Android tablets out there!

Re:What this really affects

[ClioCJS]

Right. We can't do that in this situation, which is why this situation exists. Were we really just discussing what was possible in the past the whole time?

Re:What this really affects

[Anonymous Coward]

Your refrigerator is probably not a general purpose computer, neither is your watch (unless you own this watch). Linux on the iPad runs, but is currently pretty limited.

The vast majority of consumers aren't going to run alternative operating systems, but it should not be banned. It's bad when Apple does it. It's bad when Motorola does it. It's bad when Microsoft does it.

Back in the late 1990s when Microsoft strong-armed PC OEMs into not selling BeOS, Microsoft would have loved to have made this requirement on PCs. They could have killed Linux before it was a serious competitor. Android never would have been developed. Maybe iOS never would have been either (Apple uses a fair amount of open source software).

Re:What this really affects

[exomondo]

Right. We can't do that in this situation, which is why this situation exists.

So you're saying we should be able to force mcdonalds to serve spaghetti marinara? And that all new computing devices must allow all of the possibilities of previous ones?

Re:What this really affects

[ClioCJS]

No, but you keep thinking that's what I'm saying. And allowing all possibilities is not the same thing as the absence of deliberately disallowing them.

Re:What this really affects

[exomondo]

No, but you keep thinking that's what I'm saying. And allowing all possibilities is not the same thing as the absence of deliberately disallowing them.

Allowing all possibilities is not a requirement in a free market.

Re:What this really affects

[ClioCJS]

It's actually more like: If McDonald's somehow had magical powers which kept me from putting ketchup (my preferred condiment for chicken) onto their sandwiches, even if it's my own ketchup, I own the sandwich, and were trying to do this at home -- I'd be all for preventing them from preventing that. It's not the same as forcing them to sell ketchup (or anything anybody demands) on every burger, which is how I'd characterize my perception of how you'd characterize the situation.

Re:What this really affects

[Darinbob]

It's not about crippling linux. It's about not treating "those few" as irrelevant people as you just did and denying them their rights.

Re:What this really affects

[ClioCJS]

Never said it was. Tho, having all possibilities would represent a greater freedom of choice, just like a salad bar with more items is greater freedom of choice. And corporations were originally made for the public good. And forcing a multinational corporation to do some tiny thing violate's no individual's rights, as a corporation is not an individual. Tho the law would beg to differ; but the law is often an asshole.

Re:What this really affects

[ClioCJS]

excuse the errant apostrophe

Re:What this really affects

[Anonymous Coward]

yet with that same logic, if that tomato was equivelent to a product, and apple choose to cease selling that product, in their product line how is that different? Apple is not the same in this situation, MS is using it's leverage to influence the supply chain and force other companies to comply.

Re:What this really affects

[exomondo]

Never said it was. Tho, having all possibilities would represent a greater freedom of choice, just like a salad bar with more items is greater freedom of choice.

Exactly! Just like a tablet market with more items is greater freedom of choice. The introduction of these Windows 8 tablets gives us more devices on the market than we have now, giving us more choice than we have now, not less.

Re:What this really affects

[ClioCJS]

Interesting perspective. Not quite how I see it. Question: Is there something stopping all other tablets from running Windows 8? {besides Apple's normal douchebaggery, which is a given?}

Re:What this really affects

[exomondo]

Interesting perspective. Not quite how I see it.

Well at least you understand my point, but if that's not how you see it then it appears we have been arguing this from substantially different points of view. That does explain the lengthy discussion.

Question: Is there something stopping all other tablets from running Windows 8? {besides Apple's normal douchebaggery, which is a given?}

Well many of them have locked bootloaders just like these Windows 8-certified tablets will. For the unlocked ones, probably nothing sans drivers.

Re:What this really affects

[ClioCJS]

So out of the two options - adding more choice by giving us a Windows 8 tablet; or adding more choice by giving us a tablet that runs Windows 8 but can also run other OSes... You can guess which one I think brings more choice to the table ;)

Re:What this really affects

[exomondo]

So out of the two options - adding more choice by giving us a Windows 8 tablet; or adding more choice by giving us a tablet that runs Windows 8 but can also run other OSes... You can guess which one I think brings more choice to the table ;)

Of course the latter does bring more choice than the former, but the former brings more choice than what we currently have and neither reduces choice. Yes an abolishing of locked bootloaders would bring even more choice, but i don't see that happening any time soon.

Re:What this really affects

[glodime]

The conclusion to this thread gives me hope. Its length depresses me.

Re:What this really affects

[ClioCJS]

LMAO .. Your comment almost made it all worth it ;) I've been trolling online since the 80's, so it's really hard to try to get through to someone, as I'm usually just stomping on them instead. Occasionally, though, I feel like rising up and actually trying to get through to someone.

...Fuck it's hard.

Re:What this really affects

[epyT-R]

there's a difference between selling something as-is and purposely binding/crippling it so that it doesn't compete with and/or creates an artificial market for price fixing of the 'advanced' model (or other models that do things this one could with some tweaking). it's these types of moves that reek of entitlement because they encroach on the rights of consumers, you know, the people whose property the product becomes (or should become) after they pay money for it.

I guarantee you that if the conditions you're advocating for were present in the 1970s and 80s, most of today's tech giants wouldn't exist. open ended computing devices are what help the next generation get on their feet. if it's all locked down for the sake of today, we'll all just end up paying more and getting less for it. ..and if a company goes under because someone took their hunk of hardware and repurposed it such that profitability drops to zero on that product, then they overvalued what it was they were offering. I'm not sure this locked down service driven future they're all shooting for is in the best interests of a sane society.

Re:What this really affects

[exomondo]

No-one has ever stopped anyone from building an open ARM tablet, and no-one is going to now, in fact there are a myriad of ARM tablets out there and some of them have unlocked bootloaders. Windows 8 is software, it's not enabling new hardware that couldn't already be built if there were demand for it.

Re:What this really affects

[epyT-R]

it's not a question of stopping.. it's a question of default expectations. if win8-arm becomes dominant it will effectively kill off the open arm device.

Re:What this really affects

[epyT-R]

while I agree with your assessment, just because something 'is' doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't change.

Re:What this really affects

[Anonymous Coward]

The lockdown does prevent one thing: I cannot just give a Linux live CD or USB stick to a friend to try out. To make it run will require major UEFI surgery that may cripple the device if it goes wrong, so few faint-of-the-heart will even try. In the case of these ARM tablets, it's going to be completely impossible. Re-purposing a PC which nears its end of usefulness with Windows is also going a lot harder (just think of all the boxen that used to run XP and now run some light-weight Linux distro).

Re:What this really affects

[epyT-R]

it will if 'those few devices' grows into a dominant share of the market. that will squeeze out alternatives. something like this is best nipped now, not fought later.

Re:What this really affects

[rohan972]

This a device built for a specific purpose (to run Windows 8), if you want to run other operating systems then buy a device designed to do such things.

That is incorrect. These are devices that are built to be general purpose and are being modified to make them less useful to purchasers in order to benefit MS. I am sure that NONE of the hardware manufacturers have any desire to spend extra time and money engineering their products to be less functional. If they do it will be the result of strong arm tactics by MS.

Once again MS show that they believe their product is not good enough to compete on its merits.

Re:What this really affects

[rohan972]

I understand your point but it isn't as though MS is going to be taking away anything that exists now, just like apple when they released the ipad.

Apple sells ipads, MS sells software. Non-Apple hardware manufacturers currently sell hardware capable of running other software than MS. If MS is successful in their strategy they will prevent as many phones being available to run Android, they are definitely trying to take something away.

Re:What this really affects

[GameboyRMH]

Except that it's not like that at all, you don't buy a hammer if what you need is a screwdriver, just like you don't buy a device specifically designed for an operating system if you want to run a different operating system, you choose a different device.

I did that for years, never bought a closed phone in my life. Now the only open phone in production (is it still in production?) is the N9 and it doesn't have the hardware keyboard I want. That is the last open phone, there is nothing else coming. Just avoiding the wrong tools didn't work for me in the long run, the options dwindled down to nothing over time. Now I'll have to root an Android phone, and I'll be restricted to an Android-based OS thanks to closed drivers. I'm still trying to figure out how to set up a rooted Android phone without ever creating or signing into a Google account.

Re:What this really affects

[GameboyRMH]

That's right frog, it's not too hot, stay in there as long as it's comfortable...

Re:What this really affects

[b4dc0d3r]

These are valid answers if enough people actually do it. It would take less than a month for an employer to drop drug testing requirements if they had nearly no one to fill the jobs.

If enough people move to another city, that will be a big enough tax drain that the city will take notice. Just the threat alone, when people start putting their houses on the market and moving from local banks to national ones, will send a big enough signal that maybe government will change its ways.

It never works out because people are not willing to stand up. When voting time comes in foreign countries, a one-legged man walks 20 miles to vote and considers himself "very lucky". Here, we would demand that the bus routes be extended or send an ambulance to pick the guy up. Yes we pay taxes, but we don't pay enough to cover every situation, enough teachers, police, transportation for everyone in the city limits to do anything.

You have to state what you want, and what will happen if you don't get it, then do it. When you run out of countries to move to, then burn the government to the ground and start over because it's the only choice the government left you.

Yes, moving is expensive and inconvenient, but so is using something that is locked down, or living under stupid laws. You choose your inconvenience, and most people choose the path of least resistance.

And if you don't have the support to do things in big enough numbers, then you are in the minority and resistance is futile. Keep trying though, we need people to man the opposition.

Re:What this really affects

[b4dc0d3r]

What if new devices started using proprietary screwdriver bits?

Same thing that has happened every other time this kind of thing comes along. It is in place for a while, consumers complain about it but go along, eventually the industry standardizes and new devices have consistent tooling. It happens to every new technology, someone thinks they can get more money by developing things in-house (Sony).

There will be early adopters, a plateau of sales, people will complain about their freedoms, and either companies will change or they won't, depending on what it's worth to them. Again, if the market is there for unlocked devices, they will be an option. If the demand is negligible, there is no reason for an existing company to fill that niche, so it's up to you to start that company if you want it.

Re:What this really affects

[ClioCJS]

You're very out of touch. Drug tests are legally required for many jobs. How would those go away? If people move away from a city, supply and demand will drop the price, causing different people to take advantage of the cheaper housing and move back in. One-legged men in america get special buses to bring them out to vote? Really? Where do you get this stuff?

Anyway, please show me some examples of things like this happening. Current examples. Otherwise, you're just blowing idealism up everybody's ass, and wasting humanity's time with idealism rather than real solutions. Running away won't change peoples' behavior. While there may be an occasional exception to the rule, something that works 1 in 100 times doesn't constitute my idea of a "solution".

Re:What this really affects

[ClioCJS]

The iPhone went in the opposite direction, changing to more proprietary screws. People did not complain, and it did not change. You're wrong.

Re:What this really affects

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't decide if you're trolling, or you really are this stupid. This is not the first time you've deliberately/maliciously misrepresented his argument. This is directed at not just you, but anyone buying this nonsense:

Please read the following link carefully: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

Re:What this really affects

[exomondo]

it's not a question of stopping.. it's a question of default expectations.

Which currently, when looking at ARM tablets, is a locked bootloader and a device that is designed to run a single OS.

Re:What this really affects

[exomondo]

Apple sells ipads, MS sells software.

Thanks captain obvious but you're splitting hairs, the consumer buys a device, they don't care who makes what part of it, so it doesn't make any difference.

Non-Apple hardware manufacturers currently sell hardware capable of running other software than MS.

Yes.

If MS is successful in their strategy they will prevent as many phones being available to run Android, they are definitely trying to take something away.

By what logic do you reach that conclusion? You think Windows 8 is going to be so good that everyone will stop using Android?

Re:What this really affects

[jd]

Oh, I completely agree with that. And frankly there's a hell of a lot that I think should change.

Re:What this really affects

[rohan972]

Thanks captain obvious but you're splitting hairs, the consumer buys a device, they don't care who makes what part of it, so it doesn't make any difference.

It's about what MS is attempting to do to the market, not about what the average consumer thinks. Most consumers don't put enough thought into it to have an opinion worth knowing. It isn't splitting hairs, it does make a difference.

The difference is that Apple, by deciding on closed devices, controlled the behavior of one company, themselves. No product that was previously existing became unavailable due to backdoor deals Apple made with other companies. MS deciding on closed devices is leading them to attempt to control the behavior of many companies. To the extent they succeed, phones that can run Android will become less available.

You think Windows 8 is going to be so good that everyone will stop using Android?

No. Neither does MS or they wouldn't require devices to be unable to run Android. They are hoping to use their brand recognition and marketing power to make manufacturers drop Android. I don't think they will succeed but they may do a great deal of damage in the attempt.

Re:What this really affects

[exomondo]

The difference is that Apple, by deciding on closed devices, controlled the behavior of one company, themselves. No product that was previously existing became unavailable due to backdoor deals Apple made with other companies.

And what pre-existing device is there that can run Windows 8 now that will cease to be able to run other OSes once W8 is released?

MS deciding on closed devices is leading them to attempt to control the behavior of many companies.

They aren't controlling them any more than Google does with their certification, if you want their branding you have to adhere to their contract specs.

To the extent they succeed, phones that can run Android will become less available.

No, and the proof is WP7. WP devices cannot run other OSes and are made by manufacturers that also build Android devices, these companies continue to make just as many Android devices today, it has not reduced the number of pre-existing devices.

No. Neither does MS or they wouldn't require devices to be unable to run Android. They are hoping to use their brand recognition and marketing power to make manufacturers drop Android. I don't think they will succeed but they may do a great deal of damage in the attempt.

They did the same thing with Windows Phone, and we've seen no change in the market at all.

Re:What this really affects

[rohan972]

They aren't controlling them any more than Google does with their certification, if you want their branding you have to adhere to their contract specs.

The contract specs for MS dictate inability to run other OS, Google is a founding member of the Open Handset Alliance

To the extent they succeed, phones that can run Android will become less available.

No, and the proof is WP7. WP devices cannot run other OSes and are made by manufacturers that also build Android devices, these companies continue to make just as many Android devices today, it has not reduced the number of pre-existing devices.

I said "to the extent they succeed". WP7 does not meet the criteria of having notable success.

No. Neither does MS or they wouldn't require devices to be unable to run Android. They are hoping to use their brand recognition and marketing power to make manufacturers drop Android. I don't think they will succeed but they may do a great deal of damage in the attempt.

They did the same thing with Windows Phone, and we've seen no change in the market at all.

Trying to be evil and failing is not the same as not being evil. They are trying to restrict the ability of people to run other OS's than theirs. You can argue in circles as long as you like but it is in the spec.

Re:What this really affects

[exomondo]

The contract specs for MS dictate inability to run other OS, Google is a founding member of the Open Handset Alliance

So?

I said "to the extent they succeed". WP7 does not meet the criteria of having notable success.

Then why would more Windows 8 devices mean less Android phones (or tablets for that matter)? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Existing Android tablets don't run Windows 8 and tablets that do run Windows 8 not only don't even exist yet but aren't going to affect tablets that don't run it.

Trying to be evil and failing is not the same as not being evil. They are trying to restrict the ability of people to run other OS's than theirs.

Are you really that ignorant that you think they've invented the locked bootloader or something? Just about every noteworthy tablet on the market does this currently. If you want to run Android, don't buy an ipad, if you want to run iOS don't buy an Android tablet, if you want to run webOS don't buy an ipad or an Android tablet...it's really not that hard, that's the way of the tablet market, much like smartphones.

You can argue in circles as long as you like but it is in the spec.

I'm clearly not saying that it's not in the spec. The fact is they aren't taking existing devices and saying you can't run anything but W8 on them, they are saying if manufacturers want to make Windows 8 ARM devices then these new ARM devices can run Windows 8 only. They aren't forcing anything on anyone, clearly you'd like to believe they are but the fact is that no matter how much you spin this 'evil' rubbish they aren't forcing anything on anyone.

They aren't even saying you need that 'Designed for...' sticker on it, that hardware can be produced to run Windows 8 but it just can't be marketed with that specific sticker on it.

Re:What this really affects

[rohan972]

The contract specs for MS dictate inability to run other OS, Google is a founding member of the Open Handset Alliance

So?

That's a typical response given in primary school, just before resorting to repetitions of "is!" or "is not!". If you don't understand the difference it is most likely because you have decided not to (I make this assumption because you don't seem to be retarded) and further discussion is therefore unproductive. The terms of the contract specs is precisely the point, which you obviously must know since we have been discussing that very topic.

Re:What this really affects

[exomondo]

No what I'm saying is that your response isn't consistent with the topic, which is that they all impose restrictions on manufacturers, those who don't adhere to Google's requirements don't get Google's branding, just as those who don't adhere to MS' requirements don't get MS' branding. In both cases a manufacturer can choose to develop and sell a device without that branding if they prefer.

As i demonstrated above, MS is not doing anything new or different with the tablet market, just as with every other tablet on the market if you want to run other OSes then that is wholly dependent on the choices made by the manufacturer, and most choose not to allow it.

Re:What this really affects

[rohan972]

No what I'm saying is that your response isn't consistent with the topic, which is that they all impose restrictions on manufacturers, those who don't adhere to Google's requirements don't get Google's branding, just as those who don't adhere to MS' requirements don't get MS' branding.

As far as I know Google's requirements aren't designed to lock out competition. It's not the fact that they have specs, it is what they are attempting to do to the market with those specs.

As i demonstrated above, MS is not doing anything new or different with the tablet market ...

Well fair enough, but I never said they were the only ones to attempt it nor that it is new.

just as with every other tablet on the market if you want to run other OSes then that is wholly dependent on the choices made by the manufacturer, and most choose not to allow it.

Indeed, and if the manufacturers don't lock it down, the telcos try. There have been plenty of devices locked down to the detriment of the customer in an attempt to gain revenue streams for companies. I do not regard it as acceptable practice, unless those devices would be offered for rent, not sale. Devices for sale should not lock the purchaser out.

If we posed a generic question regarding MS actions in any market it enters into: "Is MS attempting to force out competition by unethical and/or illegal means?", my answer is yes until they prove otherwise by at least a decade of demonstrating honorable business practices. I'm not a court of law, I don't have to give them the presumption of innocence. I think to do so is naive.

Re:What this really affects

[exomondo]

Indeed, and if the manufacturers don't lock it down, the telcos try. There have been plenty of devices locked down to the detriment of the customer in an attempt to gain revenue streams for companies.

It's not really to the detriment of the majority of customers, most customers don't care about dual booting and those who do will buy a device capable of it instead. We've seen companies like Dell do Linux-based PCs (ok they weren't popular) so there's no reason to suggest they won't try it with Ubuntu-based tablets if such an offering looks viable.

I do not regard it as acceptable practice, unless those devices would be offered for rent, not sale. Devices for sale should not lock the purchaser out.

They already do, and always have. The OS on a device like this is tied to the hardware and is less like a PC OS and more like firmware, the hardware even has specific button layouts to support the OS!

Re:What this really affects

[rohan972]

It's not really to the detriment of the majority of customers, most customers don't care about dual booting and those who do will buy a device capable of it instead.

No, back in the day I've seen phones which had crippled bluetooth so you couldn't send things like pictures you had taken with the camera. They wanted to charge for data over their network. A non-tech savvy customer mightn't know enough to complain about stuff like that but they are definitely still affected. A good example is the original iphones not allowing tethering.

Consider that you printer may be spying on you https://www.eff.org/issues/printers and how many people have used their phones to do things like record police misbehaviour. I think there is a real need for people to really own their devices whether the majority of customers are aware of it or not.

Re:What this really affects

[exomondo]

What's that got to do with replacing the OS? That's closed-vs-open source issue, if you're concerned about that you'd buy an unlocked Android tablet - not an iPad or Windows 8 tablet - so that you could load on an open source OS.

Re:What this really affects

[rohan972]

The ability to replace the OS is the ability to run software that does what you choose. You can't possibly be unable to understand that, I think you're just continuing to argue because you like it or can't stand conceding a point.

People jailbreak phones for exactly this reason, to regain capability that has been removed, not always with OSS.

I'm not going to reply in this thread again, I don't think you're serious about discussion. I don't need to "win". Go ahead, post last.

Re:What this really affects

[exomondo]

The ability to replace the OS is the ability to run software that does what you choose. You can't possibly be unable to understand that, I think you're just continuing to argue because you like it or can't stand conceding a point.

No i'm saying your issue of 'printers spying' and such is something that applies to almost every single device and certainly applies to any software that you haven't compiled yourself, so that's certainly not a new issue here. Earlier you were saying these policies are ok for iPads but not for these Windows 8 devices, clearly that's not the case here.

People jailbreak phones for exactly this reason, to regain capability that has been removed, not always with OSS.

You've got 2 separate issues that you've introduced here, one being this need for 'tethering' which is something that is related to the carrier, not the device and if it weren't in the OS at all then it isn't something that is able to be added. The other is your issue of 'spying' which is wholly related to software you've compiled yourself from source, anything that has been pre-compiled could possibly be 'spying' on you.

I'm not going to reply in this thread again, I don't think you're serious about discussion. I don't need to "win". Go ahead, post last.

Actually it appears you aren't serious about this discussion, you've gone off-topic quite wildly now, to the point where your original point that this policy is ok for Apple's iPads but not for Windows 8 tablets no longer makes any sense, your current points apply exactly equally to both kinds of devices.

Test certificates

[Anonymous Coward]

Just an uniformed question, but wouldn’t the OS varies allow unsigned loading of binaries but prompt the user or inform them in some way? This is how it is handled for most systems in which you are developing new drivers. By default only trusted sources are loaded but if you want to enable other signed binaries the user has to specifically allow it, what is wrong with this approach?

Re:Test certificates

[Atlantis-Rising]

The user is, primarily, the problem, security-wise. Giving the user the ability to opt out of the security defeats it, because had they not been a problem to start with, the security would not likely be necessary.

Re:Test certificates

[Anonymous Coward]

Just an uniformed question, but wouldn’t the OS varies allow unsigned loading of binaries but prompt the user or inform them in some way? This is how it is handled for most systems in which you are developing new drivers. By default only trusted sources are loaded but if you want to enable other signed binaries the user has to specifically allow it, what is wrong with this approach?

This is the approach that MS supports for x86 systems, but not for ARM-based ones. I say, screw MS! If I don't own the hardware I have paid for, and therefor have the right to modify it to my own needs, then I say to h-e-double-hocky-sticks to those who would try to sell it to me. I don't see a "you are leasing/renting this computer" on the box when I buy it, and until I do, then if I cannot install another OS (Linux, QNX, MyOwnOS, or whatever), they aren't selling it to me to become MY property. They are saying that it is Microsoft's property.

Re:Test certificates

[Z34107]

This is the approach that MS supports for x86 systems, but not for ARM-based ones. I say, screw MS!

I don't see a problem with them locking down the "designed for Windows 8"-emblazoned ARM tablets. Apple proved there's a market for unconfigurable iDevices, so let Microsoft have a stab at the "it just works" crowd. x86 tablets will be just as free as Windows has ever been.

Not that I'm likely to buy either, mind you. I just don't take personal offense to Microsoft trying to sell to my grandma.

Re:Test certificates

[jd]

Then the solution is simple. Eliminate all the users. I suggest hiring the daleks for that one, they seem enthused with the idea.

Re:Test certificates

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really, the users posing the largest risk are those that won't know how to opt-out even when an opt-out is available, as such all that such a system needs to be reasonably safe is being on by default and that large risky chunk of users will never toggle it, they won't even know it's there and even less so what it does.

NO !! DON'T BUY MACHINES WITH WINDOWS !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple as that !! I don't want to see any "ooooh, but windows comes on everything good" crap !! Don't buy those !!

Boycott

[woboyle]

The solution (yeah, as if that will ever happen) is to boycott any and all devices that come with Windows 8 pre-installed, including x86 systems. Microsoft has to be made to understand that they are NOT the only shark in the water.

Re:Boycott

[Nerdfest]

... and tell everyone you know not to buy them either. This part is important, as 'geeks' are not that numerous, but the influence of many is very large.

Re:Boycott

[PRMan]

Windows 8 sucks! Yeah!

Re:Boycott

[Nerdfest]

It may or may not, I don't care, but locking hardware to a specific platform is a dick move and generally an indication that a software company is abusing its market position to influence hardware manufacturers.

A Blessing in Disguise?

[lolcutusofbong]

There's a chance, however slight, that this will lead a bigger push for keeping modules in the kernel tree.

Re:A Blessing in Disguise?

[Microlith]

Which has precisely nothing to do with the issue being discussed.

GOOD!

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything that reduces the necessity to dumb down Linux (see Unity) for end users (who do not care if they use Linux or Windows) is applauded by me.

I don't care what runs the ssh client to connect to my Linux servers.

Re:GOOD!

[theheadlessrabbit]

Everything that reduces the necessity to dumb down Linux (see Unity) for end users (who do not care if they use Linux or Windows) is applauded by me.

Why is the dumbing down of linux a bad thing?

You may not like unity, but if you look hard enough, you might eventually find someone who does, and for you, there are any number of other desktop environments to choose from, and switching between them isn't hard at all. Isn't that the whole point of linux: freedom and choice to make your system do what you want it to sudo.

computers don't have to be hard to use, they are tools that allow us to do work (and look at porn.) if a simpler interface aids anyone in getting their work done (or their porn viewed) how can it possibly be a bad thing?

Re:GOOD!

[Anonymous Coward]

>Why is the dumbing down of linux a bad thing?

The more end users a system has the more it will be hacked (negatively).

A faith that alternatives to Linux can keep. Together with the, for Linux, worthless majority of end users.

Re:GOOD!

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if "easy" doesn't cripple. Right now we have "hard to use" and a world of possibilities. Alternatively, there's the example of Windows, which is so "easy to use" that people often don't even know where physically their files are, and can't do many things unless they're approved for the windows experience. That's where focusing on "easy" gets you. It's not good to focus on "easy", it's better to focus on "possibilities", among them a few being "easy" but not so much that it takes over the design of the system like in Windows.

Re:GOOD!

[epyT-R]

when 'easy' cripples the functionality curve, it becomes a threat.. in the apple world, final cut pro 7 vs FCX is a good example of this. In MS world, windows vista/7 vs windows 2000/xp is another. win7's explorer is seriously inflexible, but yeah, it works great for the targeted market of drooling morons who just want to collect pictures and videos.

it's nice to develop apps on a platform where you can assume your users have more than half a braincell. do you really want your computing life ruled by wizards and huge buttons and lots of useless whitespace..and lots of extra clicking?

Anti-Trust? Sherman Act? Clayton Act?

[walterbyrd]

I'm not lawyer, but it seems like it could be.

Microsoft conspiring with hardware makers is no different than Standard Oil conspiring with the railroads.

Re:Anti-Trust? Sherman Act? Clayton Act?

[forkfail]

The sad thing is, as a US citizen, I'd like to see Microsoft succeed. The US has so few industries left that bring money into the country that we can ill afford to lose many more.

But they just keep insisting on doing stupid shit like this that absolutely needs to be slapped down (though, given the relative amount of money the MS lobby and the Linux lobby [1] contribute to congress, and the lessons MS learned the last time around, I have doubts that it will happen...)

[1] I know. It made the point, though, didn't it.

Re:Anti-Trust? Sherman Act? Clayton Act?

[crutchy]

micro$oft > ireland > bahamas > bermuda > fiji > russia > china > angola > columbia > italy > etc > etc (whatever the chain is)

i really doubt that the mightly US government gets much dosh from redmond

Resale value?

[Anonymous Coward]

Consider this, demand for second-hand devices of this sort is going to be VERY weak. I'd not buy one myself.

Some bright entrepreneur will make a fortune....

[Anonymous Coward]

...supplying open source hardware.

Just wait until Windows 8 and Apple IOS suffer their first major hack. The resulting panic will be unbelievable.

Hi, GreatBunzinni!

[Anonymous Coward]

How's it going, GreatBunzinni!

This is more than just a phone and tablet issue

[Calibax]

Right now, the ARM architecture equates to tablets and phones for many, maybe most people.

However, a number of companies (Qualcomm, NVIDIA, and others) have announced that they are developing ARM processors to challenge Intel in laptops and desktop systems. Probably they are going with ARM because Intel is being somewhat uncooperative (and maybe anticompetitive) by not letting them have licenses that would allow them to produce x86 compatible systems.

For these companies, having Windows on their ARM systems is vital. However, we shouldn't be short-sighted - restricting the ability for ARM systems to boot anything but Windows will (in the long run) benefit Intel, AMD, Via, etc. as much as it will benefit Microsoft by restricting which operating systems the upcoming ARM based systems can boot. They will either run Windows or they will run everything else, depending on the boot ROM in the system. Guess which most will chose.

Re:This is more than just a phone and tablet issue

[forkfail]

It's also the ruggedized hardware that the military often requires. This is a chunk of the ever growing military software market.

Re:This is more than just a phone and tablet issue

[ad1217]

I guess... Windows?

Re:This is more than just a phone and tablet issue

[ulricr]

they have indeed announced ARM ultrabook. But I think these device will fail once people realize that while it may run windows, it won't run any windows software unless it's specially recompiled for ARM and sold through the App store. From what I'm reading in comments.. it looks like people don't understand that ARM isn't Intel with better battery life. it's a different processor. and win8 on ARM is a different OS with a different UI.

Re:This is more than just a phone and tablet issue

[cookd]

The secure mode doesn't "only boot Windows". Instead, it is "only boot signed". There will probably be some Linux (or BSD) distro that goes and pays to get itself signed, and then you can install that distro on your "Designed for Windows 8" ARM device. If the distro includes VirtualBox's kernel-mode driver in the set of drivers that get signed, they you'll be able to use VirtualBox on the device as well. You'll no longer be able to compile your own kernel and kernel modules unless you pay to have them signed.

Re:This is more than just a phone and tablet issue

[cookd]

I think it is a little bit interesting that Microsoft has divided the market between x86 and ARM differently than it has divided the market between x86 and amd64. In theory, you could have a general-purpose ARM-based server, desktop, or notebook. And in theory, you could have an x86-based tablet. So in theory, Microsoft should be adding "Windows 8 tablet edition for x86", "Windows 8 tablet edition for ARM", "Windows 8 Professional for ARM", and "Windows 8 Server for ARM" to its lineup. However, theory never quite matches up with reality.

In reality, of the editions listed above, only "Windows 8 tablet edition for ARM" is likely to have any market at all in the next 2 years, so Microsoft is probably not going to offer the other 3 editions. When the market changes (e.g. if ARM servers really take off), Microsoft will add editions as necessary for Windows 9. If Intel takes over the tablet market, there will certainly be a Windows 9 tablet edition for x86. And your guess is as good as mine about which of these editions will require secure boot.

Re:This is more than just a phone and tablet issue

[epyT-R]

way to completely ignore the implied issues with such a situation..

Re:This is more than just a phone and tablet issue

[Anonymous Coward]

I think MS doesn't care about Linux on x86 threat anymore, there are more serious problems they're facing. Linux hasn't been able to capture more than a percent of the market despite good hardware support (as of last half decade). On servers - they will have hard time pushing it out anyway. So they even added requirements for being able to turn off secure boot on PC's, after all EU is still prone to investigating them.

However, ARM is the new battlefield. And Android is a competitor. They don't want to see their Windows ARM installations going into mass installation of Android on them if it suddently becomes a mainstream desktop. Limiting the boot process is one way of keeping the existing user base, but they don't prevent anyone selling Android preloaded ARM-books which support also Windows (minus the useless the MS logo).

It would be better that they don't mandate secure boot, but they are most likely not obligated to do it under current market conditions.

Self build ARM PCs

[Techmeology]

Unfortunately, most complete hardware systems tend to come paired with software (i.e. the OS). The only people who get to choose their OS are people who build their own PCs. If this becomes too common, the only way will be if it's possible to build your own (much as people do with x86 PCs today). Of course, that still sucks for anyone who wants a mobile device, or who has old (eventually) equipment, doesn't want to build them selves, etc.

Re:Self build ARM PCs

[forkfail]

That's the thing. You won't be able to. The main board will be locked into a given OS if this goes forward. And it's possible that the ARM driven video cards and such may be locked into a given driver as well.

The days of Computer Shopper style homebuilds are already pretty faded, and I doubt that it would be a viable alternative here.

Re:Self build ARM PCs

[shutdown -p now]

Intel is not going away anytime soon. If anything, they're aggressively taking on ARM in the mobile field.

BRILLIANT!

[Motard]

Don't buy a product that won't do what you want it to and call it a boycott. And it can all be accomplished without leaving the couch.

The beginning of the end

[Admiral Burrito]

So we are now seeing top-down control of executable computer code.

The last remnants of user-programmable computing have been swept away forever. Fear will keep the local systems in line... Fear of key revokation!

:(

Re:The beginning of the end

[bemymonkey]

ARM going in this direction does not mean that X86 will follow - it's perfectly possible that this is the beginning of the end, but not for computing - just for ARM.

While I hope that's not true, it's actually a rather likely path - with even "open source" Linux-based ARM devices shipping with locked bootloaders, I'm not sure we'll ever see ARM devices that are as open as X86 BIOS/UEFI based general purpose computers. Right now it looks more like they'll be stuck in the consumer toy market for a while and then die a slow death when the tablet hype slows down.

Smartphones will keep them alive, but other than that... do we really have a use for such cut-down computing devices?

UEFI Boot

[Oppiet30]

Isn't Microsoft treading on thin waters with a monopoly?

Re:UEFI Boot

[forkfail]

I guess they figure they can afford the risk.

Re:UEFI Boot

[cookd]

Probably not. Any OS can boot on a "Designed for Windows 8" ARM device as long as the OS gets itself signed. The device will boot non-Microsoft operating systems just fine as long as they're signed. The only problem is that getting a certificate is not free (probably around $500/year is my guess for what it would cost to be able to sign your own kernel).

Windows is Oranges in this case

[Zero__Kelvin]

You are comparing Apples(tm) and Windows(tm). What OS does Apple sell? What computer models does Microsoft sell? See the difference?

Re:Windows is Oranges in this case

[exomondo]

You are comparing Apples(tm) and Windows(tm). What OS does Apple sell? What computer models does Microsoft sell? See the difference?

Why does that matter? If the vendors want to build devices and brand them as Windows 8 devices then why is them being locked down any different to the ipad being locked down?

Re:Windows is Oranges in this case

[Zero__Kelvin]

"If the vendors want to build devices and brand them as Windows 8 ..."

So you think a consortium of vendors got together and asked Microsoft to create Windows 8, and make sure that it is the only OS that can run on their hardware and thereby reduce their market share potential?

Re:Windows is Oranges in this case

[exomondo]

So you think a consortium of vendors got together and asked Microsoft to create Windows 8, and make sure that it is the only OS that can run on their hardware and thereby reduce their market share potential?

No i'm saying Microsoft specifically asked vendors to build a device to run Windows 8.

Re:Windows is Oranges in this case

[Anonymous Coward]

What OS does Apple sell?

Apple Store

What computer models does Microsoft sell?

MS store

See the difference?

Maybe.

I do like this part from the Apple store.

To upgrade your Mac to OS X Lion, you must be running OS X Snow Leopard. If you have OS X v10.5 Leopard, purchase OS X v10.6 Snow Leopard now and install it on your Mac. Then buy OS X Lion as a digital download from the Mac App Store

Emphasis mine.

Re:Windows is Oranges in this case

[Rennt]

Vendors were already going to make devices to run Windows 8, and everyone was happy. Microsoft specifically asked vendors to build a device that can only run Windows 8.

Re:Windows is Oranges in this case

[SuricouRaven]

The rules for tablets are not clearly set yet. With PCs, it has long been clear: The hardware is one product, the OS another. Completly seperate, from different companies, legally speaking. For tablets though, they are trapped in a confusing world somewhere between PCs and mobile phones, where it isn't clear if the OS is a seperate product at all or merely a component of the tablet not intended to be user-servicable.

knoppix and other testing / recovery secure boot

[Joe_Dragon]

knoppix and other testing / recovery tools also need secure boot.

Does networking booting work with secure boot?

Ghost?

Hard Drive Diagnostics tools (self booting ones)

Dell Diagnostics tools (self booting ones)?

Acronis True Image

clonezilla?

Memtest86+ (better and more to the hardware then the windows memory test tool)

There is alot of stuff some still dos based that is need out side of windows.

EPIC FAIL

[Zero__Kelvin]

""What do you mean I can't put Linux on this Commodore Vic 20?!?! I'm outraged!!!!!""

Why can't you? You have the source code, and there are 8 bit versions of it for microcontrollers already, that don't have or need a VMM. Yes, it is requires a Herculian effort to do so, but you can, which is the whole point here.

Point missed ... entirely

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Except that it's not like that at all, you don't buy a hammer if what you need is a screwdriver ..."

You buy a screwdriver and use the handle to pound in nails when they stop making hammers because Microsoft uses their monopoly to drive hammer makers out of the market.

Re:Point missed ... entirely

[ulricr]

microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on tablet OS or ARM hardware. in fact they do not have any tablet OS or ARM OS at all. They are not forcing anyone to make ARM tablets with windows. if they were, for example by preventing access to Windows on PC if HP didn't make a ARM tablet with windows, that would be a monopoly issue

Re:Point missed ... entirely

[exomondo]

Yeah because Windows 8 will kill Android and iOS.

Re:Point missed ... entirely

[Microlith]

Microsoft is working very hard to drive Android out of the market. They want the mobile space to reflect the desktop space, only with even less options.

Re:Point missed ... entirely

[exomondo]

Microsoft is working very hard to drive Android out of the market. They want the mobile space to reflect the desktop space, only with even less options.

Have you seen the pitiful WP7 market share/growth compared to Android?

Re:Point missed ... entirely

[Zero__Kelvin]

So maybe you should get back on topic, since this is not a discussion of tablets. We are talking about Windows 8 and the implications of UEFI as implemented. Welcome to the conversation.

Re:Point missed ... entirely

[Microlith]

I have, but again we're just getting started. Microsoft is in this to win and take the market. It took them an entire generation and billions in losses in the console market to be considered anything more than a failure.

Re:Point missed ... entirely

[Zero__Kelvin]

You might want to at least talk about the correct subject. Hint: Think PCs, not handhelds.

Re:Point missed ... entirely

[exomondo]

I have, but again we're just getting started. Microsoft is in this to win and take the market. It took them an entire generation and billions in losses in the console market to be considered anything more than a failure.

The original xbox was a success, it might not have made them any money but people liked it and people bought it. The same can't be said for WP7.

Re:Point missed ... entirely

[exomondo]

You might want to at least talk about the correct subject. Hint: Think PCs, not handhelds.

I am, it seems you don't understand, we're talking about ARM devices, which are most prominently handhelds. PCs are almost exclusively x86 on which UEFI exists but it is mandated in the Windows 8 certification that secureboot be made optional.

Re:Point missed ... entirely

[Anonymous Coward]

You can buy (Desktop|Laptop) computers with Android on them?

Re:Point missed ... entirely

[ulricr]

secure boot is only enable on ARM and is disabled on intel PC, that's why we're talking about tablets and ultra books. it's a non-issue on PCs, nothing to discuss.

Re:Point missed ... entirely

[Anonymous Coward]

Ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife?

Isn't it moronic?

Re:Point missed ... entirely

[Zero__Kelvin]

I don't think you understand how Microsoft does business. You need to know the history to see how they will manipulate things in the background until first some, and then more, and then all PCs will be unable to disable it in the BIOS, You are watching the right hand, when you should be watching the left.

Re:Point missed ... entirely

[DeathFromSomewhere]

Believe it or not, WP7 is growing faster then android did in its first year of availability.

Re:Point missed ... entirely

[Anonymous Coward]

WP7 is growing faster then android did in its first year of availability.

[citation needed]

No, seriously, can you link to statistics?

Re:Point missed ... entirely

[DeathFromSomewhere]

Engadget article good enough? Haven't tracked down the actual study because journalists rarely link to them.

Re:Point missed ... entirely

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite. Even the title says "doesn't mean much".

Initial success is probably thanks to familiar technologies used to write apps, but longer trends show approximately linear growth with ~50k apps last year for WinPhone and ~200k for Android.

I predict....

[Bravoc]

There will be a "jailbreak" or somesuch available for these within a matter of hours from when they hit the street.

Re:I predict....

[Microlith]

Just like the Motorola devices, whose boot chain is still unbroken and as a result hinders the ability for true 3rd party ROMs to appear?

Re:I predict....

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm also wondering if it won't be possible to run some sort of signed mini-kernel, which then runs the actual linux kernel?

Since apparently running arbitrary code is still possible (like, programs on the OS), can't one of these programs be... the linux kernel?

Re:I predict....

[Bravoc]

Just like the Motorola devices, whose boot chain is still unbroken and as a result hinders the ability for true 3rd party ROMs to appear?

Not saying I got it all figured out, just saying I believe some uber-smart person will figure it out and release a hack into the wild.

Re:I predict....

[letsief]

Yes, what you just described is the bootloader.

Re:I predict....

[letsief]

I doubt that. There's a lot less code in boot firmware than in most OS-level software, meaning fewer opportunities for vulnerabilities in that code. And, probably more importantly, a lot fewer ways to inject code and try to run it. There's actually a paper from a couple years ago that found a vulnerability in the way that Intel signs their BIOS updates. That's essentially the sort of vulnerability you'd need to find. But, Intel did something sort of stupid: they signed all the BIOS code, but they didn't sign the graphics that appeared on-screen during boot. Someone found a vulnerability in the code that processed the graphics during boot which allowed for a buffer overflow exploit. Now they know better. I'm sure there's many more ways to get things wrong, but I think the code will be locked down pretty well. I don't expect to see very many exploitable vulnerabilities in UEFI BIOS that would compromise the security of UEFI secure boot.

Re:I predict....

[Voyager529]

I'm an HTC customer myself for the very reasons you specify. However, I wonder if pervasiveness has something to do with it as well. When a device is plentiful, a lot more people with time on their hands can poke it and prod it, and make custom ROMs. Overall, most of the people I know with the Droid Razr have little interest in rooting it themselves. If these tablets become popular enough (citation: iPhone), or Motorola does something particularly egregious with some well-circulated hardware (citation: Sony with PS3), the exploit will be more likely to be found.

Re:I predict....

[Microlith]

Lots of people have owned Motorola DROID devices, they're actually quite popular and have been attacked frequently. They use the same security system on all of the devices, and none of them have been bypassed.

The Nook Tablet employs the same security system and while a sorta-workaround was found, it's virtually guaranteed to be fixed in the next system update, which will lock out new devices.

Re:I predict....

[GameboyRMH]

At some point it may involve soldering new ICs in place, like modding a game console. At what point will you consider it "unreasonably hard?"

Re:I predict....

[Anonymous Coward]

it will be demand-driven...

if there is a demand for it, there will be people out there working on it

and we all know there's no such thing as a perfectly secure computer

I guess the question I want to ask

[rsilvergun]

is why isn't anyone up in arms that Microsoft is going to heavily subsidize Windows 8 Tablet & phone sales. Isn't that an Anti-Trust violation? I'm pretty sure Walmart did the same thing with cosmetics and got in all sorts of trouble...

Re:I guess the question I want to ask

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, what? Since when is Microsoft subsidizing tablet & phone sales?

Nvidia's rumored desktop class ARM chips?

[Chrontius]

I was all set to build my next gaming rig around Nvidia's rumored ARM chips - after being locked out from making Intel compatible chipsets, rumor had it they first considered building an x86 processor in house, then decided to build an ARM chip because they could be more awesome.

Well, shit, what now?

Buy an AMD/ATI box? maybe, but Bulldozer kinda sucks.

Hope Intel can pull their head out of their ass regarding graphics? Not holding my breath.

Nvidia's ARM on Nvidia chipset? Actually, that sounds kinda exciting.

but hey, GUESS WHAT?!

Thanks, Micro$oft.

Re:Nvidia's rumored desktop class ARM chips?

[Narishma]

And what games will you run on your ARM gaming rig?

Re:Nvidia's rumored desktop class ARM chips?

[Chrontius]

If Windows-on-Arm takes off? I can certainly count on all the Valve ones, so most of the ones I care about.

Re:Nvidia's rumored desktop class ARM chips?

[GameboyRMH]

Once there's enough processing power to emulate an x86 machine, any of them. I can run lots of '80s PC games just fine in DOSBox on my N900.

Not really a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course Microsoft didn't want linux on the Xbox or Xbox360 but that hasn't stopped it from happening. History teaches us that if linux hackers want linux on something and it's possible then it will eventually be done.

Signed GRUB

[Alain Williams]

As I understand it this is about what the firmware loads having to be signed. It then trusts that program to do the right thing and apply tests to ensure that other operating systems or modues are correctly signed before loading them. Ie a chain of trust.

How long do you think it will be before a signed version of GRUB (that will happily load anything) appears on an FTP site somewhere ? Either by someone cracking the signing key, or someone working late at night at an office somewhere where they have the ability to generate signed binaries and doing a bit of unrecorded extra work. There is a good chance that whoever does it will not be caught ... just pass the binary down a chain of contacts the last of which puts it up somewhere.

Revoking a key will take a lot of work, it might not be possible to do on kit that is already out in the field. They might make using this signed GRUB illegal, but on what gounds ? They would need new laws.

What man can do - man can break.

Re:Signed GRUB

[Microlith]

As I understand it this is about what the firmware loads having to be signed.

On ARM, the devices cannot trust any signatures but the ones they're loaded with and I am skeptical keys for any other OS will be allowed on Windows branded tablets.

This has nothing to do with the GPLv3.

Either by someone cracking the signing key

Crack AES-128 or better? GFLWT.

They might make using this signed GRUB illegal, but on what gounds?

Well, distributing it would be a violation of the GPLv3 if the key itself wasn't also available. Of course, I wouldn't trust a random binary downloaded off some FTP site.

Re:Signed GRUB

[letsief]

If GPLv3 actually forbids a useful security mechanism, then GPLv3 is broken. Some people, like Linus Torvalds, already think it is. So, if you really aren't allowed to digitally sign GRUB due to GPLv3 (which I think is highly questionable), then the right answer is to switch bootloaders to one released under a more reasonable license. If the FOSS community found themselves in that position by not creating any GPLv2 or BSD licensed UEFI-compatible bootloaders, then its going to be up to them to get themselves out of that mess.

And, Microsoft already said their signing service would sign third-party bootloaders.

Re:Signed GRUB

[Microlith]

If GPLv3 actually forbids a useful security mechanism, then GPLv3 is broken.

It doesn't. What it requires is that the security mechanism be under the control of the person who owns the device, so that they can sign their own build of GRUB and install it. So Ubuntu could deliver a signed build, but I could add my own key and sign my own build.

Understandably, companies with a fetish for controlling the end-user don't like this.

If the FOSS community found themselves in that position by not creating any GPLv2 or BSD licensed UEFI-compatible bootloaders, then its going to be up to them to get themselves out of that mess.

We're being put into this mess by Microsoft's desire for market control. If you can figure out how to add your keys (or disable secure boot) on your new Designed for Windows 8 motherboard, you can use a UEFI compatible version of GRUB to boot Linux, securely.

Microsoft already said their signing service would sign third-party bootloaders.

So it still puts Microsoft as the arbiter for access to our own property (and I think they're full of shit, in any case) never mind that not just anyone will be able to get a signature. I'm sure they'd love to be in a position of control over the entire industry, especially over competing OSes. It's not like Microsoft hasn't deliberately delayed things intentionally to cause other companies (even partners) trouble.

Re:Signed GRUB

[letsief]

First, barring some big change on Red Hat's and Canonical's position on UEFI secure boot, I don't think you're going to see any other entity besides Microsoft be able to sign UEFI executables. The code signing in UEFI secure boot is more like Microsoft's driver signing program than Android's app signing. All code must be signed by Microsoft. The UEFI secure boot spec says that code must be signed directly by the private key corresponding to the public key in the UEFI key store. There's no mechanism to issue a firmware developer their own certificate that's rooted in a key in the key store. So, someone can't quietly sign a UEFI executable. Microsoft isn't going to be inspecting UEFI executables for malware- but they are going to make sure they know who asked for a particular executable to be signed. They want to be able to trace malware back to the author, in the event it does get written and signed.

Also, there are revocation mechanisms for signatures in UEFI secure boot (the "forbidden list"), and Microsoft's requirements state that manufacturers must implement that functionality. Otherwise this type of signing is almost pointless.

Re:Signed GRUB

[letsief]

UEFI secure boot is a perfectly legitimate mechanism to secure the boot process. That's really important, because any code that executes before the OS can insert a rootkit that would be very difficult to detect. I haven't heard of an equally good alternative that is suitable for the mass market. So, I really think people should be applauding Microsoft for what they're demanding on x86 systems. I agree the situation on ARMs isn't ideal. It's really not any worse than the policies of the competition, but I do generally agree people should be able to do whatever they want on the hardware they buy.

But, it seems like GRUB really should be able to get their code signed. They aren't the ones distributing the device that does the signature checking. Matthew Garrett basically said the same thing, although basically called that a legal loophole.

Re:Signed GRUB

[Microlith]

I don't think that anyone is arguing that UEFI secure boot is illegitimate. The problem is the process seems to be slanted entirely in Microsoft's favor.

it seems like GRUB really should be able to get their code signed

Every distro would have to get their GRUB signed. If you ran something like Gentoo, you would need to have YOUR GRUB build signed. And your key would either need to be available on the system, or you would need to be able to install it.

The problem stems from systems where the keys can't be updated. Distributing GRUB for those platforms would be a GPLv3 violation, unless you included the key used to sign it as welll, which will never happen.

Re:Signed GRUB

[letsief]

Maybe this is a stupid question, by why would every distribution have to get their GRUB build signed? Is GRUB distribution-specific now? If so, then I don't see any way around signing every build. For something like UEFI secure boot to work, you need to sign all code that executes during boot. But, if you're saying that because of some idea that GRUB has to verify the OS, I don't see where that comes from. There's no requirement to do that.

And, by the way, of course the signing key wouldn't be distributed. That would completely invalidate the security of UEFI secure boot. There's only one signing key per trust anchor. UEFI secure boot doesn't have a way to do certificate chaining. That's why Microsoft has to sign everything- there's no mechanism to give other entities signing keys rooted in Microsoft's trust anchor.

I agree the entire UEFI secure boot is slanted in Microsoft's favor, but that's only because they're the only player in town. No one else has offered to set up a UEFI executable signing service.

Re:Signed GRUB

[Microlith]

Maybe this is a stupid question, by why would every distribution have to get their GRUB build signed?

Because each distribution builds its own GRUB, possibly with a different version of the compiler making each one different. Unless you want to coordinate every Linux distro to use a single source for a single build of GRUB.

For something like UEFI secure boot to work, you need to sign all code that executes during boot.

Correct, however that's not the hard part. The hard part will be getting the key included by default on all the possible devices that users might install it on. And this doesn't even account for live cds and live usb keys, which may not even use GRUB.

That's why Microsoft has to sign everything- there's no mechanism to give other entities signing keys rooted in Microsoft's trust anchor.

Well technically they don't. Canonical could run around and try to ensure every new device includes their key. Microsoft doesn't have to worry though, since it's guaranteed that it will be included.

that's only because they're the only player in town

Nonsense. One could have been established or chosen independent of Microsoft, but I suspect that MS and Apple both enjoy the, "decentralized" you might call it, nature of keys that give them the advantage.

No one else has offered to set up a UEFI executable signing service.

And I doubt one will crop up.

It's basically a problem being solved in the way most advantageous and convenient to Microsoft, and Microsoft using their position to ensure it is done that way.

Re:Signed GRUB

[letsief]

Honestly, I think you have it backwards. I think its less that UEFI secure boot is most advantageous to Microsoft and more that it happens to be inconvenient to Linux. The open source community, for both good and bad reasons, has made a series of decisions that make a signed code model difficult to implement (and stomach).

Forgetting about who runs the signing service for a moment, do you have a better idea of how to solve security problems with boot firmware? It's one thing if you don't like the implementation of UEFI secure boot, but you seem to be suggesting that the entire concept behind UEFI secure boot benefits Microsoft. If that's true, what is the alternative?

I don't think Microsoft particularly wanted to run the signing service. It has already given them headaches, and it opens the door for a lot of potential problems with liability. But who else was going to run it? The UEFI Forum never gave any indication they were willing to run it when the specification was being written. Given they were the natural choice, I think it's pretty clear that means they explicitly didn't want to run it. Who else was going to run it? Verisign? I'm sure that would have gone over much better... Even if things did go that route, who was going to pay for it? If Microsoft funded it, which they probably would have had to, people would have just assumed Verisign was going to do whatever Microsoft told them to.

Red Hat and Canonical have never given any indication they were willing to run a signing service either. And people in the industry did ask them to. I'm not sure they ever explicitly said no, but they certainly never said yes either.

Re:Signed GRUB

[rdebath]

Probably not grub. But a public domain MBR loader would be simple to arrange and perfect for breaking the trust chain in a safe and verifiable way. Basically it would be small enough to be distributed as a hex dump like below and someone who can use a disassembler can check it all in a few minutes.

000000: fa fc bb 00 7c 31 c0 8e d0 89 dc 8e d8 8e c0 b9
000010: 00 01 89 de bf 00 06 f3 a5 ea 1e 06 00 00 fb be
000020: be 07 80 3c 80 74 0b 83 c6 10 81 fe fe 07 75 f2
000030: eb 47 bf 06 00 c6 06 fe 7d 00 8b 14 56 31 db 53
000040: 53 ff 74 0a ff 74 08 53 68 00 7c 6a 01 6a 10 89
000050: e6 b4 42 cd 13 8d 64 10 5e 72 02 eb 0c 31 c0 cd
000060: 13 4f 75 d6 be ad 06 eb 13 bf fe 7d 81 3d 55 aa
000070: 75 b5 89 f5 ea 00 7c 00 00 be bd 06 e8 0f 00 be
000080: 9d 06 e8 09 00 31 c0 cd 16 ea 00 00 ff ff ac 3c
000090: 00 74 09 bb 07 00 b4 0e cd 10 eb f2 c3 0d 0a 50
0000a0: 72 65 73 73 20 72 65 74 75 72 6e 3a 00 44 69 73
0000b0: 6b 20 72 65 61 64 20 65 72 72 6f 72 00 4e 6f 20
0000c0: 62 6f 6f 74 61 62 6c 65 20 70 61 72 74 69 74 69
0000d0: 6f 6e 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
0000e0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
*
0001b0: 00 00 00 00 00 00

I think I might get a teeshirt printed ...

Re:Signed GRUB

[Anonymous Coward]

> you seem to be suggesting that the entire concept behind UEFI secure boot benefits Microsoft.

Strawman. UEFI is not the problem; it's that it cannot be turned off on ARM, and comes pre-enabled on W8 PCs and is difficult to turn off.

Here's how it should work:

- UEFI should be delivered disabled.
- If the vendor has his quality control right, the OS on the HD contains no malicious SW in the boot process.
- On first boot, the user is recommended to enable UEFI, with the warning that this may affect installation of other OSs.

With the trusted keys already in the PC, I assume that turning UEFI on should be a lot easier than turning it off.

Re:Signed GRUB

[rohan972]

If GPLv3 actually forbids a useful security mechanism, then GPLv3 is broken.

Useful to whom? The GPLv3 does not forbid the owner of a device from anything. It does prevent the seller of the device from securing the device from the new owner. IMO this is as it should be. It seems, though, that there are more companies interested in locking the end user out of the device than companies interested in providing security mechanisms to the end user.

MUST is overrated

[WaffleMonster]

I've been known to piss on requirements in specifications from time to time because they subvert my interests or they have effects I believe to be more harmful than helpful.

All secure boot does is give the computer some assurance whatever it is handing off control to can be trusted.

There is no technical way for UEFI or anything else to enforce signed drivers in the form of modules loaded dynamically at runtime. If the kernel is blessed by the computer these "requirements" are simply empty words on a page that can and will be ignored with impunity.

Re:MUST is overrated

[letsief]

Thank you. I don't know where Matthew Garrett that crazy idea either. Once the BIOS passes control to the bootloader, and the bootloader passes control the OS, the BIOS no longer dictates what runs on the system.

Re:MUST is overrated

[Alex Belits]

Actually it can, at least on PC. BIOS can be activated by SMI invisible to the user, or as a part of some closed interface (such as, say, power management, ECC RAM maintenance, or the way how boot from USB storage is supported). Then it can perform its "security check" and crash whatever it does not like. Be thankful if it won't do something truly malicious while doing that, if such feature will be implemented.

Re:MUST is overrated

[letsief]

SMI handlers aren't really part of the BIOS. They're set up by the BIOS, but they're not really BIOS code. SMI handlers either have to be invoked by whatever software is controlling the system or by certain hardware-driven mechanisms that don't seem to apply here. There might be a some weird way to jerry-rig SMI handlers to do what you're describing, but its far from clear to me that that's possible.

Interestingly enough, in the UEFI world there is some BIOS code that lives on after the OS takes control. UEFI provides a set of run time services to the OS. Again, these have to be called from the OS. But, there really isn't anything comparable in the legacy BIOS world. As I said, SMI handlers aren't really BIOS code. ACPI code is slightly more comparable, but still not quite the same thing,

By the way, there is something interesting research into the nasty kinds of malware you can create if you can load malicious SMI handlers. One way an attacker could do that would be to flash a malicious BIOS which loads malicious SMI code. But, the Windows 8 requirements include some protections on the BIOS, including requiring signed BIOS updates.

Re:MUST is overrated

[rdebath]

The trust is in the infrastructure around the system. The fact that they will try very hard to ensure that nothing is signed that will allow the boot to be broken.

The Signed drivers are enforced by the fact that an OS that is able to load unsigned drivers WONT BE SIGNED. If your company "maliciously deceives" Microsoft into signing your generic loader you won't get anything else signed.

This signing scheme can and does work in the simple case; In the case of Microsoft's Gigabytes of cruft there will be holes large enough to drive a cruse liner through but it won't stop it being a serious pain in the ass and requiring Windows to be installed and running on every machine.

Re:MUST is overrated

[epyT-R]

uh yeah.. that little part about the kernel? that's critical.. can't have development on an open source os if the hardware requires a signed kernel to boot.

Re:MUST is overrated

[WaffleMonster]

uh yeah.. that little part about the kernel? that's critical.. can't have development on an open source os if the hardware requires a signed kernel to boot

Every package a modern linux distribution downloads nowadays is "signed". Whats the big deal? Even if you compile your own kernel from source it is one extra thing make does at the end.

The core issue is having the ability to define certs your computer is willing to trust. If you can do that as TFA infers you can do anything you want including develop an intermediate handler which loads an untrusted operating system.

Re:MUST is overrated

[Alex Belits]

SMI handlers aren't really part of the BIOS. They're set up by the BIOS, but they're not really BIOS code.

What the Hell are you talking about? There are plenty of SMI haldlers that are in the BIOS itself. I have mentioned some that are ALWAYS originally in BIOS.

Re:MUST is overrated

[letsief]

I think we're just having a terminology/interpretation difference. You're saying SMI handlers are "in" the BIOS, I'm saying SMI handlers are "set up" by the BIOS. I'm not quite sure what you mean by saying they're "in" the BIOS itself. As I said, SMI handlers are certainly loaded by the BIOS during boot. The BIOS is the only entity that can load SMI handlers, and its supposed to lock SMI code prior to executing untrusted option ROMs or bootloaders (otherwise you have a pretty nasty vulnerability on your hands).

But, I wouldn't call SMI handlers "part of" the BIOS, partly because they don't perform the same function as BIOS, but perhaps more importantly because they run in a logically separate execution environment from the BIOS (i.e., System Management Mode).

But, the distinction between "in" versus "set up by" the BIOS isn't particularly important. I'm still curious about your previous claim that you could use SMI to do code signing checks after you've passed control to untrusted code outside BIOS/boot firmware. As I said in my previous message, its not clear to me how that would work. What would trigger the SMI handler to perform the check?

Re:MUST is overrated

[Alex Belits]

No. BIOS contains code of SMI handlers, and it configures those handlers.

All modern BIOSes rely on those handlers being present before OS is loaded (because reading boot devices that are not floppies or IDE drives, relies on them), and often OS has to keep them enabled (if they perform service such as ECC RAM maintenance). They are just as much part of the BIOS as int 13h handler, CMOS/ESCD I/O, POST, ROM scan, or boot sector read read/execute procedure, they just are not standardized and usually not documented.

But, I wouldn't call SMI handlers "part of" the BIOS, partly because they don't perform the same function as BIOS, but perhaps more importantly because they run in a logically separate execution environment from the BIOS (i.e., System Management Mode).

1. Everything in BIOS ROM, shpped with BIOS image and written by BIOS manufacturer, is considered a part of BIOS.
2. At initialization time, BIOS jumps between modes and "execution environments" like crazy, and does all kinds of weird things before landing in that pseudo-real mode to boot the OS.

I'm still curious about your previous claim that you could use SMI to do code signing checks after you've passed control to untrusted code outside BIOS/boot firmware. As I said in my previous message, its not clear to me how that would work. What would trigger the SMI handler to perform the check?

Timer, or hijacking a port used by some legitimate device such as hard drive or graphics adapter, so OS will inevitably trigger it. Then that handler can just go and do its "security checks" while the system is frozen (and possibly load a completely different OS just to phone home everything it found if manufacturer feels like that).

Re:MUST is overrated

[letsief]

You obviously have a strong background in this area. I don't do BIOS development myself, but I do know people that do, and they always corrected me when I said SMI was part of BIOS. I definitely see your argument, but I still think you shouldn't consider it part of BIOS because it executes in SMSM. SMM is very different from the other modes on an Intel CPU. Real and protected modes (and the numerous other modes) aren't logically separated in the same way that SMM is separated from every other mode.

I kind of assumed you were imagining using a timer or hijacking some other frequently-needed SMI. I can imagine how that could work, but it doesn't seem practical to regularly halt execution to enter SM, perform security checks on whatever is in memory, and then resume execution. Wouldn't you have to, at least, inspect everything in memory? That would be quite slow.

Re:MUST is overrated

[Alex Belits]

I don't do BIOS development myself, but I do know people that do, and they always corrected me when I said SMI was part of BIOS.

Then they probably did EFI development, so their SMI handlers were not a part of BIOS. Long before EFI, concurrently with EFI (and likely long after EFI will be abandoned), BIOS used its own SMI handlers for all kinds of things from hardware emulation to ACPI and even legacy PnP BIOS services. I remember the last one because once I had to fix a bug in it -- thankfully no one actually uses PnP BIOS anymore, but curious minds are welcome to look at a Linux source to find two (!) independent workarounds that were made for that particular bug. No, I don't work for a BIOS vendor -- if I was I would kill myself out of shame.

It's extremely annoying how much stuff is going on behind the scenes while OS supposedly has full control of the hardware.

I kind of assumed you were imagining using a timer or hijacking some other frequently-needed SMI. I can imagine how that could work, but it doesn't seem practical to regularly halt execution to enter SM, perform security checks on whatever is in memory, and then resume execution. Wouldn't you have to, at least, inspect everything in memory? That would be quite slow.

Not only it's possible, this is how ECC memory scrubbing works! SMIs are the bane of realtime operating systems on Intel hardware -- keep them enabled and goodbye hard realtime, keep them disabled, and things may break your hardware!

Secure Boot is only for UEFI Executables

[letsief]

I'm really confused by Matthew Garrett's assertion that secure boot creates problems for virtualbox, OS device drivers, and other kernel modules. UEFI secure boot only applies to UEFI executables (basically UEFI device drivers and bootloaders). Only the bootloader hands off control to the OS, UEFI secure boot's job is done. It's up to the OS bootloader to decide if it wants to check a signature on the OS. And from there, its up to the OS to decide if it wants to verify signature on other kernel modules, including drivers. If the Linux folks aren't worried about malicious device drivers acting as rootkits, they don't need to verify device drivers. It's just that simple.

And maybe if Matthew and the FOSS community are that concerned about standardized key formats for UEFI they should actually join the UEFI Forum. Red Hat and Canonical have certainly been invited to the table, but they instead choose to criticize from the outside rather than be part of the solution. Microsoft has gone out of their way to try to placate the FOSS folks here, at least on x86 (I agree that the situation on ARM is a bit different). MS will sign other bootloaders, if someone will submit one, allowing Linux folks to take partial advantage of UEFI secure boot. MS is requiring user-configurable trust anchors on x86, which is exactly what Red Hat and Canonical asked for.

I really don't understand Matthew here. He got what he wanted on x86. I can understand him not being happy with the requirements for ARM systems, but he should be ecstatic with Microsoft's new draft requirements for x86 systems.

Re:Secure Boot is only for UEFI Executables

[Junta]

MS will sign other bootloaders, if someone will submit one, allowing Linux folks to take partial advantage of UEFI secure boot.

Don't see why MS should be required (or should perform) signature of other vendor content. I would assume they'd want to verify that the grub efi executable in turn validates payload, or else refuse to sign (after all, a signed open ended chainloader pretty well defeats the whole point of the mechanism).

MS is requiring user-configurable trust anchors on x86, which is exactly what Red Hat and Canonical asked for.

I had various revisions and acronyms and I honestly couldn't keep it all straight. Someone implied the first pass was MS trust anchor only and a subsequent pass was going to have configurable trust anchors (though how those trust anchors got installed was a point of some centention). The impression they gave was of a more reluctant MS for the third party trust anchors...

Re:Secure Boot is only for UEFI Executables

[letsief]

Microsoft wants UEFI secure boot so people can securely boot into Windows. If you're using a different bootloader to load Linux, Microsoft doesn't care if your system gets infected with a rootkit. But, the preboot environment doesn't know what OS is going to be loaded, so it has to check signatures on anything. Right now the only entity that has stepped up to the plate to sign UEFI executables is Microsoft. No one else has they would set up an alternative signing service. If Red Hat and Canonical joined together to create one, they might actually be able to get the major OEMs to install the trust anchor on their products.

I've only seen the mid-December draft of the Windows 8 requirements, but it's my understanding that that draft significantly loosened the requirements for UEFI secure boot. Or, perhaps more accurately, is significantly strengthened the requirement for user-control of the secure boot setting and the trust anchors on x86 systems. That might indicate some reluctance to accept third party trust anchors. Or maybe they didn't expect any other UEFI executable signing services, since nobody else said they would do it. Or maybe at first they thought it was more appropriate to leave the decision on configuring secure boot to OEMs (a position they obviously don't hold now, given the strict requirements on both x86 and ARM systems).

Re:Secure Boot is only for UEFI Executables

[Junta]

If you're using a different bootloader to load Linux, Microsoft doesn't care if your system gets infected with a rootkit.

But, if a signed grub.efi exists that is *ostensibly* for linux loading but doesn't validate content it boots, then a malware could bundle that and use it to chain their malware to rootkit MS instead of linux It's not like grub can't execute arbitrary efi executables. Even if in theory the loader *could* only do linux kernels, then a malware author can still make a rootkit that has entry points that resemble a linux kernel but instead rootkits MS.

This is really the challenge in 'secure boot' in any innocuous way. You either lock it down so tight as to be anti-competitive and restrict the users, or you give users power but effectively give up the security benefit. The 'attacker' and 'legitimate user' are pretty well indistinguishable from each other.

I'm still unsure how mass deployments will go on systems equipped for secure boot. If you allow the service processor to disable the feature, then malware can use that same vector. If you require manual F1 setup action, then that's very anti-automation. I suppose you could only allow modification of that prior to POST exit (e.g. mass-deployers would have to leave the system off).

Re:Secure Boot is only for UEFI Executables

[letsief]

The threat you identified isn't special to GRUB or even bootloaders. Any EFI executable could potentially be "hiding" a malicious bootloader, or some other malicious payload that mucks with the way Windows boots up. I think you'll deal with this potential threat exactly one way: if you find out a previously-signed EFI executable is doing bad things, you'll add the signature associated with that executable to the "forbidden list" (essentially revoking the signature), and you'll go after whoever submitted that executable for signing.

That doesn't necessarily help you if OS-present malware modifies the loaders and the kernel. On the next boot you could load a modified kernel, which isn't going to be detected because you'll also have modified loaders. But, a lesser-known fact about UEFI secure boot with Windows8 is that Microsoft's OS loader is going to be signed with a different key than all other EFI executables. While I don't know exactly how its intended to work, its presumably intended to help block the sort of attack I think you are imagining. But, at the very least, GRUB can't directly load Windows. Instead it would launch the Windows 8 loader, and the UEFI BIOS should verify the signature at that stage. Presumably a bootloader like GRUB could be modified to directly load Windows, but that might be enough to land you on the forbidden list if someone catches you.

I don't know. All that's basically just a guess on my part.

I think you're absolutely right though that there's a tension between security and flexibility here.

You make an interesting point about service processors. Generally speaking, it should be difficult for malware to use that vector, since service processors (should) authenticate any requests (using a digital certificate, or at least a password). Still, a strict interpretation of Microsoft's requirements say that physical presence is required, and remotely changing a BIOS setting via a service processor isn't physical presence. Will OEMs write their BIOS so you can't change that setting via something like AMT? Maybe. I don't really know. I honestly don't see a compelling need to be able to turn it off remotely, so it seems like a bad idea to let it be remotely accessible by any mechanism, including a service processor. If you're running Windows, the only reason you might want to turn off secure boot is to use an old add-in card, in which case you're already physically at the box. If you're running Linux, and they don't get their act together to play nicely with secure boot, then you're just going to turn off secure boot when you initially set up the system.

Re:Secure Boot is only for UEFI Executables

[cookd]

The problem is that by having something signed in your name, you are sort of attesting that the code won't do any bad stuff, directly or indirectly. If you get a GRUB bootloader signed and then somebody uses your GRUB as part of a rootkit, your name is going to be on the rootkit. (Not sure about the actual laws, but there is potential for liability here. Do you have enough lawyers to risk it?)

One way to avoid taking the blame for unfortunate events is to pass the blame to someone else. In the case of code signing, that means a bootloader will only load a kernel if the kernel is signed. That means that if somebody uses the kernel in a rootkit, it isn't the bootloader's problem anymore -- the blame falls on whoever signed the kernel.

Taking it one step more, the kernel can avoid blame by ensuring that it only loads signed drivers. As long as all kernel-mode code is signed, the operating system can make certain assumptions about the world. It might still be running malware, but it's always user-mode malware, never a rootkit or a kernel-mode problem. Keyloggers can only work via approved and documented operating system APIs, etc.

Depending on how secure you want the system to be, you might even extend this "only load signed code" thing all the way into user mode. But that's optional, since the operating system already has a pretty good security layer in place for user mode code.

Re:Secure Boot is only for UEFI Executables

[Anonymous Coward]

"rather than be part of the solution"

But the so-called solution is rigged from the start. The only way to win is to not play the game.

As for malicious device drivers with rootkits, UEFI itself does nothing to prevent that. The manufacturer can ship one intentionally or unintentionally, fully signed. The keys can be stolen. And so on. What UEFI does is make it written in stone who can provide the software that your computer runs.

Re:Secure Boot is only for UEFI Executables

[epyT-R]

1. in 'secure boot' mode, the option of booting alternative bootloaders is impossible. that's the point after all, to prevent unsigned software from running before the signed os boots up.. ideally, the chain of trust is passed to a known signed kernel which passes control to a known set of system libraries and executables.

2. who in their right mind wants any one entity to have such control? ms will magnanimously sign other bootloaders? where's the guarantee in that? the only way this can be mitigated is if the user can create his own keys and upload them to the hardware. that's not going to happen.

3. no he shouldnt be. this is that 'well I lost control of the kingdom, but thank god I got a few bones thrown my way' stockholm syndrome attitude I just don't get. why give up inherent control over the hardware you buy to some troll who wants to build a bridge you don't need? if this was truly about security, they'd open the system so anyone can create their own keys and root of trust. of course that's not the real reason. its about control over what software runs with what data.

Re:Secure Boot is only for UEFI Executables

[Anonymous Coward]

The threat you identified isn't special to GRUB or even bootloaders. Any EFI executable could potentially be "hiding" a malicious bootloader, or some other malicious payload that mucks with the way Windows boots up. I think you'll deal with this potential threat exactly one way: if you find out a previously-signed EFI executable is doing bad things, you'll add the signature associated with that executable to the "forbidden list" (essentially revoking the signature), and you'll go after whoever submitted that executable for signing.

Revocation lists only matter if you check it before you accept the signature as valid, i.e. UEFI connects to the Internet, downloads the latest copy of the revocation list and only then will it boot the system.
Call me crazy, but this sounds like obnoxious complexity and slows the boot down.

That doesn't necessarily help you if OS-present malware modifies the loaders and the kernel. On the next boot you could load a modified kernel, which isn't going to be detected because you'll also have modified loaders. But, a lesser-known fact about UEFI secure boot with Windows8 is that Microsoft's OS loader is going to be signed with a different key than all other EFI executables. While I don't know exactly how its intended to work, its presumably intended to help block the sort of attack I think you are imagining. But, at the very least, GRUB can't directly load Windows. Instead it would launch the Windows 8 loader, and the UEFI BIOS should verify the signature at that stage. Presumably a bootloader like GRUB could be modified to directly load Windows, but that might be enough to land you on the forbidden list if someone catches you.

1) UEFI boots signed legitimate GRUB
2) Signed GRUB boots Linux
3) Linux boot scripts load a malware kernel module into the kernel
4) Linux malware kernel module reads Windows kernel and friends into memory
5) Malware strips Windows kernel digital signature and replaces the certificate checking code with Null-operations (signatures on everything are always computed as valid)
6) Linux hosted malware shuts down Linux and jumps into Windows kernel entry
7) Hacked and infected Windows kernel boots "normally" believing UEFI secure boot is in place

Now, just package the Linux kernel, malware module and signed GRUB.EFI in a single package and you've got yourself bootsector virus version 2.0. What was supposed to be secure about this, again? [The process I outlined is undetectable without diagnostics, it will merely slow down the boot unless you poke around in UEFI and realise that GRUB.EFI is being loaded instead of WINBOOT.EFI; all the signatures are "valid"]

Re:Secure Boot is only for UEFI Executables

[letsief]

Sure, but all that is tangential. UEFI secure boot itself doesn't say anything about how non-EFI executables are handled during boot. If a signed OS loader doesn't want to verify a signature on the OS kernel, it doesn't have to. It might want to, so it can't be used as part of malware, but that's not a part of UEFI secure boot.

Liability is a potential problem with UEFI secure boot, although a problem for whoever is signing UEFI executables (i.e., Microsoft). That's probably why no one else has offered to set up a signing service.

Re:Secure Boot is only for UEFI Executables

[letsief]

What do you mean in secure boot the "option of booting alternative bootloaders is impossible?" It's not. Secure boot just says that alternative bootloader needs to be signed. Now, you're right that there would be a security problem for Windows if an alternative bootloader tried to load Windows without checking its signature. But, there are other ways to deal with that potential problem other than simply forbidding alternative bootloaders. Things like GRUB can't boot Windows directly anyway- it just starts the Windows bootloader, whose signature would be checked by the UEFI BIOS as part of secure boot.

Re:Secure Boot is only for UEFI Executables

[bWareiWare.co.uk]

You can only select the Grub boot loader from the trusted environment. Once you have selected it then the security is only as good as Grub wants even if you then boot Windows. The point is you have the option of choosing the secure Windows loader and being sure that is what you are getting.

Re:Secure Boot is only for UEFI Executables

[Junta]

I honestly don't see a compelling need to be able to turn it off remotely

If it comes disabled by default, sure. If enabled by default, need to mass deploy....

Re:Secure Boot is only for UEFI Executables

[letsief]

Security features should always default to on- particularly ones suitable for 99% of users.

What are you needing to mass deploy? What situation do you have in mind where a corporation has deployed a bunch of Win8 machines with UEFI secure boot enabled, and then later needs to push out an update that will break the machines?

Windows boxes, which will make up the vast majority of clients being remotely managed, will definitely work with secure boot enabled. So, unless you put in a old add-in card (which require physical presence anyway), what system change will interfere with secure boot? You're not pushing out Linux installs and GRUB remotely, are you? Because it seems like that's the only thing that might not play well with secure boot.

Re:Secure Boot is only for UEFI Executables

[Junta]

Datacenters with hundreds of rackmount servers that come with no OS on that will be destined for Linux. You may envision only the desktop deployment case where mass centralized Linux deployment is rare (though some corporations *do* end up with windows installed systems as the only thing they can source and want to churn out Linux too), but they are pushing for this sort of stuff on server systems as well, where many never see so much as a monitor connected or a human ever explicitly touch it other than placing it into a rack or chassis.

Re:Secure Boot is only for UEFI Executables

[letsief]

First, the UEFI secure boot requirement is mainly for client systems. Microsoft is making it optional for servers, and many won't implement it for legacy support reasons. But perhaps even more relevant, the MS requirements definitely don't apply to the types of servers you have in mind, which rarely come with an OS installed.

Second, I suspect many, if not most, rackmount servers still undergo a provisioning process whereby each server is individually configured some minimal amount. Some probably already have to have their BIOSes configured for various reasons. So, for systems destined to run Linux, it can be disabled (if someone can't manage to sign GRUB). For systems that will run Windows, it can stay enabled. Actually, a third situation is probably even more likely- a server destined to run a hypervisor. Given how much VMWare and Citrix care about security, I'm sure they'll support signed bootloaders once servers start supporting UEFI secure boot.

Third, the types of servers that really aren't ever touched come with BMCs with nearly unfettered access to system settings, including BIOS. Even though its a bit of a security vulnerability, I'm sure BMCs will be able to disable UEFI secure boot on server systems.

Right to Read

[marcosdumay]

That's the begining of the implementation of that "Right to Read" stuff. We tought it was averted at the 90's, but it was just delayed.

One thing is certain, if this thing goes forward (what is not granted yet) the organization (company, country, whatever) that somehow avoids Microsoft will have a huge competitive edge.

Re:knoppix and other testing / recovery secure boo

[letsief]

Yep, that's true. Any bootloader, including bootloaders on boot CD/DVDs, will need to be signed when UEFI secure boot is enabled. You'll probably need to disable UEFI secure boot when using old add-in cards, like discrete video cards, too. At least, I think you''ll have to if you want to be able to be able to use your monitor in the preboot environment.

That actually raises an interesting question though... If you have a motherboard with UEFI secure boot enabled by default, and you try to use an old video card that doesn't have a signed UEFI device driver, how would you even go into the BIOS settings to turn off secure boot?

IT'S OVER

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

SOPA PIPA, the "return" of public-domain artefacts to the status of "intellectual property", "secure" boot.

My .sig is no joke. If the elite in the US and Europe were told "make the choice between keeping Corporate Capitalism or Republican Government?

I think you know that the last vestiges of the old republic would be swept away... in a twinkling.

GET THIS STRAIGHT! Democracy is MORE IMPORTANT than mere COMMERCE!

But it's too late, isn't it? Now, it's all over - except the shouting.

bonch is a sockpuppet shill Re:"Freedom"

[GreatBunzinni]

The bonch account, together with bonch, Overly Critical Guy and SharkLaser accounts, are sockpuppet accounts employed to astroturf slashdot with corporate-friendly PR and karmawhore through fluff posts.

They are so heavily invested in pumping slashdot discussions with PR speak that they repeatedly post messages cut/pasted from the same PR script, as pointed out in this post.

They also engage in coordinated campaigns to steer discussions and attack users who post messages which are unfriendly to their sponsor corporation or threaten their karma, as pointed out in this discussion

So, mod this astroturfing account accordingly.

I would think there will be some kind of vga / ves

[Joe_Dragon]

I would think there will be some kind of vga / vesa fall back or some kind of basic UEFI video driver. Any ways it's not like BIOS needs a 3d driver and no video till os boot makes it seem like the video card is bad.

ATI and NVIDIA are too big to be locked out.

also how many raid cards have UEFI?

The real reason why

[JoeCommodore]

Microsoft is threatened by Linux being able to boot other OSs means that folks could boot Linux, and when running in Linux they could run WINE and then access x86 applications that Windows 8 ARM cannot. Besides the potential compatibility I am sure MS is going to face tough competition on a slim hardware platform where Linux/Android and other open OSs can out-innovate on it as a community better then MS can (think kinect there).

MS knows the Win8 ARM is going to be a tough sell and they don't want their low-end hardware ARM (converted to Linux, operating as a more robust OS) devices to compete with the more lucrative win8 x86/64 devices because even if it is not well received consumers (lets not use the term customers, locking the device to a single OS makes the devices throw-away) will have no choice to buy a better unit, and hopefully it will be a full power Win8 tablet, notebook or desktop.

Re:The real reason why

[Junta]

Linux they could run WINE and then access x86 applications that Windows 8 ARM cannot.

Wine on non-x86 can't run x86 Windows applications. Qemu in theory could... very slowly, but then again that can run on Windows too. They certainly want tight control over the ecosystem from top to bottom, but they are probably more afraid of consumers getting cozy with sideloading apps instead of the more profitable 'market' rather than Linux replacing their OS at this stage in the game. They are envious of Apple's model and desperately want that for themselves.

out-innovate on it as a community better then MS can (think kinect there).

I know many examples where OSS world has outmanuvered MS in terms of interesting work, but Kinect is a pretty bad example, nearly *all* the interesting work done to date has been atop MS platforms using MS SDK resources. The specific Kinect implementation has pretty much gone precisely as Microsoft could have hoped.

I do think Win8 ARM (if it *really* happens) is a very bad idea for MS strategically speaking. MS OS is nothing particularly special in and of itself and at this point is propped up by popular software support. They dilute that message and it could mean significant trouble.

Re:The real reason why

[xororand]

Wine on non-x86 can't run x86 Windows applications. Qemu in theory could... very slowly, but then again that can run on Windows too.

There is ongoing work to change that: http://wiki.winehq.org/ARM
That way, all of WINE's Windows API code, including GDI, DirectX, etc... would run with native speed on ARM.
Only the target executable itself, excluding DLLs that are covered by WINE, would be emulated with QEMU.

Will Secure Boot Cripple Linux Compatibility?

[Wazz]

"We" already have a way around this....not to worry...it's no big friggin' deal.......WTF

Re:I would think there will be some kind of vga /

[letsief]

RAID cards were usually the thing I pointed to when people were worried you weren't going to be able to turn off UEFI secure boot. I fully expect you'll need a signed UEFI device driver for your RAID card if you want to boot off of it.

Hopefully you're right about a basic UEFI device driver, otherwise I think people will have problems before UEFI-compatible add-in cards become pervasive. But, in a UEFI world I don't think you have the same concerns about no video until OS boot. UEFI systems running Windows 8 will boot much faster than today's systems, making the time before the OS device driver kicks in much less.

This will only hasten their marginalization

[jimmydigital]

I'm sure they don't realize what they are doing... but they will in time. They (unlike apple) don't sell the hardware their software runs on. Therefore.. it's not under their control how many devices are in the market that can run an OS that is so locked down. At first there may be many... but those choices will taper off as sales of linux based devices will always be less expensive. That and people don't like windows on non desktop platforms and I seriously doubt they have done enough right with the next iteration of Windows to change that perception. So in the end.. this will resemble yet another failed Microsoft mobile platform and less like the next desktop OS for the future. In the mean time.. they will continue to shed 3rd party developers as this slow motion train wreck unfolds.

Re:This will only hasten their marginalization

[dbIII]

Maybe it will be like the DVD region locking thing. Illegal to circumvent in the USA but the rest of the world, including the hardware vendors doesn't care so provide you with an easy way to get around it.

what about bios config?

[Joe_Dragon]

You still need video for that and you don't want that to be OS tied or to be on the HDD. Also I think OS install / windows recovery stuff on the install disk may need some kind of basic video driver. You can't count on intel GMA 2013-2014 or ATI 8XXX drivers to be on the install disk. You can load raid drivers in install but not video.

What about dos / bios flashing as well? What if you need to pre boot to flash the raid card to UEFI?

mouse and keyboard / speaker sound / USB drives have basic divers / cd dvd boot (part of ide / sata drivers) as well. And most keyboard and mouses are to dumb to have any kind of secure chip.

Re:what about bios config?

[letsief]

I really don't know what Windows recovery tools use. It seems like those wouldn't be executing in the EFI environment and would instead load their own generic device drivers. I know MS wants to be able to use UEFI interfaces to display stuff on screen, but I think that's primarily for their bootloader (which is an EFI executable).

There's certain a handful of things you might want to do in the preboot environment. Things like BIOS or card flashing are generally initiated from OSes these days, although a lot of products can probably do it in preboot, or at least DOS. You'd certainly be able to do those things on a UEFI secure boot system if you had UEFI-compatible cards. The question is can you do those things easily on a UEFI secure boot system when you don't have UEFI-compatible cards. This is a potential problem that would only impact a small percentage of users. How many people go out and buy a new computer, and then toss in an old add-in card that is used during boot (like a SATA/RAID controller or video card)? Some do, but not a lot.

Part of me is tempted to say that you must be right, and that there's got to be a generic video UEFI device driver to fall back on. But, if that were true, why wouldn't we just use generic video card option ROMs today? As you said, there's really no need for full-fledged video in the preboot environment anyway. But I know my systems all execute a video card-specific option ROM during boot. Many of the other boot-critical devices on a system are on the motherboard and have option ROMs that are embedded in the BIOS (e.g., keyboard controller, USB, SATA, etc.). Things like mice are different sorts of devices. Those don't have option ROMs that execute on the host CPU. They have their own firmware running on microcontrollers inside the mice, but no option ROMs read out during boot and executed on the host. USB controllers, on the other hand, definitely have option ROMs (but again, they're usually embedded in the BIOS).

By the way, these devices don't need secure chips. The signature verification is done by the host CPU, not anything on the card/device. The card/device just needs to have flash memory that contains a signed UEFI executable. The BIOS will find that during the boot process, verify the signature, and execute it.

Re:what about bios config?

[Joe_Dragon]

How many video cards to day have UEFI?

Let's say you buy a new system with on board video and a new video card and it does not have UEFI?

Now I can see keeping a old raid card. What you upgrade the the CPU + MB and keep the old HIGH END RAID CARD.

Re:what about bios config?

[letsief]

I don't think there are any discrete video cards with UEFI device drivers. Certainly there are none with signed UEFI device drivers, seeing as there isn't anyone signing those yet, and that's really what you need in a UEFI secure boot system. That will presumably quickly change as we approach the release of Windows 8, but there's still the problem of new systems running old video cards. That's exactly the situation I was imagining when I initially rose this issue.

RAID cards aren't really an issue. If you want to boot off an old RAID card, but it doesn't have a signed UEFI device driver, you're going to be able to go into the BIOS settings and turn off secure boot. I don't think there's a way around that. But, Microsoft's requirements for x86 systems say that users have to be able to do that. But, the idea is that there are some UEFI device drivers that you're going to need to even turn off UEFI secure boot. Some things, like the keyboard controller, are already embedded in the BIOS, so they're not problematic. But the video card might be a special case. If you want to muck with BIOS settings, you're going to need video working. But, if video cards need device-specific UEFI device drivers to function, it creates a problem. To get video working, you may need to run an unsigned video card UEFI device driver (or to run a legacy option ROM), you need to turn off secure boot. But, to turn off secure boot you'll need video working.

I figure there are two possibilities: either 1) you're right and you can have generic UEFI device drivers for video cards, or 2) there's going to be a slightly painful transition process. It might be that people that want to swap in an old video card in a new Win8 system will need to disable secure boot before removing the video card that same with their new Win8 system. Retail motherboards will probably ship with UEFI secure boot turned off by default (if they support it at all), since the Win8 requirements don't apply to them. In the end, I doubt it would impact very many people. How many people are buying new desktops at retail and putting in old video cards?

Re:what about bios config?

[amorsen]

All PC video cards do VGA in hardware (firmware). You only need one driver for all graphics cards if you can live with 640x480 in 16 colours.

Re:what about bios config?

[Joe_Dragon]

new desktops at retail and putting in old video cards?

Well how old is the card? NEW in box but 6 MO old? transition time will be a factor.

Re:what about bios config?

[letsief]

Exactly. I don't know how this transition will go, because it really hasn't started yet. I think the only UEFI device drivers are drivers which are embedded in the BIOS (e.g., like a UEFI device driver for integrated video on a motherboard). So, we really don't know yet how aggressive video card vendors will be at moving to UEFI device drivers, and, just as importantly, signed UEFI device drivers. I'm guessing video cards will ship with signed UEFI device drivers well before Win8 starts shipping, but I know I've put in cards that are several years old in some of my systems, either as a temporary measure if a card goes bad or just to use spare parts in systems that don't need fast video.

Re:what about bios config?

[letsief]

OK, but that's more of an OS driver thing, isn't it? I'm still a little concerned that you might need to run a card-specific device driver to help the card itself boot up while the computer is booting up. If a generic video driver would work to give BIOS basic video functionality in preboot, why wouldn't we be using those now? In the legacy BIOS world you only have 640x480 resolution with 16 colors even with card-specific option ROMs.

Re:what about bios config?

[amorsen]

If a generic video driver would work to give BIOS basic video functionality in preboot, why wouldn't we be using those now?

Who doesn't use them now? I am completely confused about what you are saying, graphical BIOS has existed for 20 years on PC's.

Re:what about bios config?

[letsief]

I'm saying my systems run a video card option ROM (which is the legacy equivalent to UEFI device drivers) that is stored in flash memory on the video card. It's not running a generic video card driver that is stored on the motherboard flash. To the best of my knowledge, all systems today run a video card specific option ROM at boot.

Re:what about bios config?

[amorsen]

You can easily run the graphics card option ROM in a sandbox. Various non-x86 Linux ports do that. It just needs running once so the card is set up; you don't need to call into it afterwards.

Of course the option ROM could be malicious, but since you're running it in a sandbox it can't do any harm at boot. Afterwards the graphics card tends to have unlimited access to memory with DMA, which defeats all protections, but that is the case whether you call the ROM or not. Beating malicious hardware is difficult.

Re:what about bios config?

[letsief]

My point is that your video card isn't going to work in the preboot environment if you don't have a signed UEFI device driver. Could an OS potentially work around that and get the video card working under the OS? Maybe, but even then you're still not going to be able to go into the BIOS settings in preboot to turn off UEFI secure boot, because video isn't going to work there. I don't know for sure, but I suspect Windows would have hard time using a video card if its option ROM wasn't executed during boot.

So, the moral of the story is just if you buy a Dell Windows 8 system, and want to toss in an old video card, make sure you turn off secure boot *before* you take out the video card the system came with (that is, if it has a discrete video card at all).

Re:what about bios config?

[amorsen]

The UEFI BIOS can do the sandboxing and run the option ROM. I really can't imagine that this will turn out to be a problem.

Re:what about bios config?

[letsief]

I'm pretty sure it will be a problem for the tiny number of people that will attempt to do this on a new OEM-purchased Win8 box.

I have to admit, I have no idea what you're talking about when referring to some sort of sandboxed environment in BIOS. Nobody does that now, nor is it clear from me that it's even be possible to secure up a secure sandbox to execute opROMs in. Even if it is possible, it seems like it would be rather difficult to implement, so OEMs wouldn't be interested in wasting their precious system flash space on it.

While I'm skeptical of any sort of secure sandbox, you can have compatibility layers. In UEFI BIOS, you can load Compatibility Support Modules (CSM) to execute legacy option ROMs. But, this isn't a secure way to execute untrusted code- its just there for compatibility with legacy hardware/firmware. So, OEMs are explicitly prohibited from loading CSMs when secure boot is enabled.

Re:what about bios config?

[amorsen]

Would it have been clearer to you if it had been FORTH code in the option ROM, like Openfirmware? Would you agree that it would be possible to run such code in a sandbox?

Now replace the FORTH interpreter with an x86 bytecode interpreter and you're done. Yes it takes up a bit more space than a FORTH interpreter would, but it is not THAT bad.

Re:what about bios config?

[letsief]

Sure, it seems like an interpreter would be required here, but I was more concerned about the logic surrounding the interpreter to create the secure sandbox, rather than the interpreter itself. If security wasn't a goal, it doesn't sound too hard. Maybe even if made people specifically write their option ROMs to run in this interpreter it wouldn't be so bad. But, without having any experience in this area at all, it seems like it would be difficult to set up a sandbox to run any old option ROMs that people wrote expecting to be executed directly. If you could do it, it seems like it would take a non-trivial amount of code. I doubt OEMs would want to spend system flash space on it, given this is a problem that goes away once people switch to signed UEFI device drivers.

Somewhat interestingly, UEFI BIOS already has an interpreter. The UEFI specs created something called EFI Byte Code to allow people to create architecture-independent UEFI device drivers. But, they were just trying to prevent add-in cards from having multiple copies of device drivers- they weren't trying to execute each driver in a sandbox.

Anyways, this is just a thought experiment (albeit a somewhat interesting one- I kind of like the sandbox idea, I just don't think it will happen). As I said, OEMs are explicitly forbidden from executing unsigned UEFI device drivers and/or legacy option ROMs when secure boot is enabled.

Uh, yes it does!

[Anonymous Coward]

Competes != makes it impossible to exist.

uh, yeah it does. that's the free market. you try to crush the other guy. survival of the fittest

What we're seeing here is abuse of monopolistic powers.

google is the one using monopoly revenues to pump a new market with a free product, just like microsoft did with IE. if this is an abuse of monopolistic powers, than so is Android

Re:Uh, yes it does!

[forkfail]

Even our capitalistic society has agreed that monopolies are not beneficial. We allow corporations and competition because they push us forward; monopolies do not do that. Thus, we have anti-trust laws and such to prevent them. If a single entity winds up with all the rights to build a certain thing, you can guarantee that thing will stop getting better.

The problem with the whole "survival of the fittest" model is that eventually a single entity fills the niche. With copyright and patent laws such as they are, it becomes impossible to dislodge that entity from the niche, or for anyone else to compete. This is not the goal of allowing the sort of competition that our economy, in theory, is supposed to be based upon.

Finally, the argument that "they're doing it too, so I should be able too" is beside the point. (Note, however, that I do not believe that Android has anything near the same power over the market that MS does. See also all the comments about "fragmentation" - after all, Android releases the source for the providers to mod; MS most certainly does not.)

Re:Uh, yes it does!

[glodime]

Even our capitalistic society has agreed that unregulated monopolies are not optimal.

FTFY

Re:Uh, yes it does!

[KingMotley]

we have anti-trust laws and such to prevent them

Uh, no we don't. Our society has not agreed that monopolies are not beneficial, in fact, quite the opposite in many cases. We have laws preventing monopolies from doing certain things, but not actually preventing monopolies themselves. In many cases, monopolies are better than the alternative, and is beneficial for society.

Re:Uh, yes it does!

[Hognoxious]

Competes != makes it impossible to exist.

uh, yeah it does. that's the free market. you try to crush the other guy. survival of the fittest

Right. That must be why Ford still exist and GM and Chrysler, well, ask your grandpa - maybe he remembers them.

But try not to let him go into a rant about the days when he could choose to drink Coors, or Miller, or (when he was desperate) Bud.

[Apologies to the one I missed out, it's been a while since I've been to the US. Molson?]

Solution is simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do not buy these pieces of sh*t... Who wants something as buggy as Windows on any device you depend on... The Navy tried Windows on one of it's Destroyers and it died in the middle of combat when it exceeded 1024 items it needed to track. So it was a sitting duck... Follow the Navy and don't touch this POS with a ten-foot pole...

Re:Solution is simple...

[bussdriver]

Since when did the US military start to care about buying things that worked? cough...cough..f-22...cough...cough..

Monopoly again...?

[bratwiz]

Sigh, it sounds like it's time to prosecute Microsoft for being a monopoly AGAIN. How come those fucks aren't in JAIL already anyway, huh???

Re:Monopoly again...?

[crutchy]

money talks and bullshit walks... free

Truly free

[Anonymous Coward]

All the supporters of the truly free operating systems and distributions of them are saying now "we told you blobmatists so".

If it looks like a duck

[dexomn]

It's interesting that Microsoft has long been strong-arming hardware vendors into REQUIRING that they sell their machines with an OS(oh, any OS is fine *wink* *wink*). Now apparently they want to make sure you can't take Windows off of the device. This isn't so different from encrypted bootloaders on android devices.

Now that these mobile devices have advanced to being full blown computers in every sense of the word, they are still not referred to as such. They are not even referred to and single-purpose/special-purpose computers. They are referred to as consumer electronic devices or mobile phones. People are used to consumer electronics and mobile phones being proprietary devices, this is normal and accepted. There is still the pervasive idea that with desktop computer or a notebook computer that the machine is the PROPERTY of the OWNER of the machine. "This is my machine and you can't tell me what I can or can't put on it."

They idea of buying a laptop computer that you cannot, WILL NOT, run anything but the operating system shipped with it is just weird. If people aren't thinking of the device as a computer, but merely a telephone or a gadget, this idea doesn't seem weird at all.

Re:If it looks like a duck

[rohan972]

This isn't so different from encrypted bootloaders on android devices.

This isn't so different from google requiring hardware manufactures to make android devices unable to run windows. Google doesn't do that though.

Linux loader device driver?

[spuk]

Couldn't loading Linux (or other systems) be worked around by writing a "Linux loader devide driver" or such for windows 8, and getting it properly signed to work on Windows 8, etc.?

A chance to get rid of win

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a market for linux-boxes. Therefore someone will produce them. And they will be incompatible with windwows and will come with no windows pre-installed. About time, I really don't understand why i have to sponsor microsoft every time i buy a new pc.

The irony

[CAIMLAS]

Does nobody see the irony of the people blasting Microsoft in preference for Android, which is (ultimately) a closed system, mostly installed on locked-down hardware and unrootable installs?

Re:The irony

[Anonymous Coward]

(checking my CyanogenMod'd Galaxy S) Nope.

Your extremely factual and substantiated claims make much sense.

Re:The irony

[epyT-R]

many of the drivers are closed. this makes development a pain for cyanogen.

Re:The irony

[bratwiz]

My android is rooted and running quite nicely, thanks.

Missing the point

[Douglas Goodall]

I feel like you are missing the point. I believe the critical point about what is going on right now is not about tablets but rather ARM based desktop machines. I am ready to accept that tablets are turnkey devices, appliances, that are pretty much what they are. I know some people want to hack them and I think they should be able to, but I want to get back to the desktop for a moment. So far we haven't seen any major activity with ARM on the desktop, but the ARM cores have come a long way, and some day soon we may see a massive core desktop machines that is ARM, and then we will very much want the freedom to run Linux on it because it will be a powerful little HPC. A very serious desktop. Whether you want it for gaming, or you just want a runs like lightening machine to program on... When that day comes, I really don't want to hear that I can only use it with Windows. Because if we have learned anything about Microsoft over the years, it is that they can write terribly sluggish operating systems that ALWAYS use up most of the computing power before the user gets to run anything. I have said it before and I will say it again now. Computers are a thousand times faster than they were when Windows first came out. They also have a thousand times more memory, and a thousand times more hard disk. But they don't run all that much faster than Windows 3.1 did, and I think we are owed an explanation. But getting back to the ARM on the desktop. The Microsoft certification guidelines for ARM based equipment specified that the SECURE BOOTING will run in STANDARD MODE ONLY and not CUSTOM MODE. EVER. Unless Microsoft wants to pay for all the development going into these platforms, who are they to mandate that only their software can run on them? The other point I want to make, is that their excuse for all this is keeping the systems secure, but it is their system (Windows) that has all the terrible problems with viruses. I am not saying Windows is the only platform that can be pwned, but it is easily a million times worse off than the OS's that they are trying to suppress. As far as national productivity is concerned, if the US wants to get it's competitive edge back, a ten year plan, not for alternative energy, but rather a ten year plan to get us off Windows and onto ANYTHING ELSE, hopefully *nix based, would be a great start. IMHO

Re:Missing the point

[Gumbercules!!]

Umm, I'll think you find they do run faster than in the days of 3.1. A lot faster. If you're going to claim that boot times are similar, for example, consider that DOS (which booted 3.1) was a matter of less than 1MB. Windows 7 is a few gig at least. Booting a few gig OS in the same time as a meg OS is actually a thousand times faster. Again, I can compute enormous volumes of data in SQL (MS or My) on this PC in Windows in a very, very short time. This was not true of my old 286, running 3.1, which would have taken hours to even attempt to search a tiny database by today's standards.

Yes, Linux has a smaller footprint and I use it accordingly, where it's fit for purpose. But don't claim that Windows 7 is in some way slower or even less performable in comparison to 3.1 over DOS because it's patently and verifiably untrue.

None the less, I don't agree with this move by MS on desktop PCs and agree that people are missing the point by focusing on tablets, where few if any will try to change the OS. I mean, MS have already sold the OS, why should they care if you change it? They've got your money already.

Re:Missing the point

[Douglas Goodall]

I guess it is the user facing aspect of computers that I am most disappointed with. For me, the text editor is the performance benchmark. I edit large programs, sometimes thousands of lines. Way back, I remember running Wordstar on a Wyse 50 terminal at 38400 with no handshaking required, and the code flew past. Later on in the Windows NT time, I had a code editor with what I would call a live scroll bar. You moved the scroll bar, and the text flew past, thousands of lines if that was what you were working on. I could really get around in the code. Soon afterwards, things slowed down a lot, and because the hardware and software could not keep up, Microsoft detached the scroll bar from the document, and when you stopped scrolling, the doc repainted. I could no longer scroll through my programs at top speed, looking for familiar shapes to tell me where I was in my large program. Then a while back I switched to the Mac, and regained that "live" sort of scrolling that I really want for my working tools. During my travels through professional programming, people gave me various guidelines about how long users should be made to wait for results, usually gauged in seconds. It seems like even though I have a modern machine with Windows 7, plenty of ram... It often makes me wait 30 seconds for a program to load. I used tons of different operating systems over the years, but it was the Unix based workstations that finally caught my interest. I am afraid just adding SCO failed to make a PC into a workstation, but Mac OS X on top of substantial Intel hardware assets makes what I consider a good workstation. I still have to use Windows for some things, but not by choice, and I don't enjoy the experience.

with time..things evolve (or should..evolve :D)

[Anonymous Coward]

What is required from the OSS community is a counter-attack project..a "UEFI Killer" / "Secure-Boot Killer" like project which helps in disabling (i don't think so that only bypassing would be feasible and/or possible.. what would be required is actually separating that F**KN feature off the grid.. *snuff*) the feature :)
hmm..OMFG what did i just typed.. :D
Peace off~
echo9

Re:knoppix and other testing / recovery secure boo

[st3v]

There are no drivers in a BIOS. A BIOS is an embedded program in a motherboard with basic functionality for system configuration. Anyways, UEFI is a replacement for BIOS, there will be no BIOS anymore. And for BIOS or UEFI, it doesn't matter what video card you use because they occur before Windows starts. The secure boot/signed code issue comes up when Windows starts booting.

Re:knoppix and other testing / recovery secure boo

[bemymonkey]

Right now it would seem that you're dreaming - there's a very good chance that we'll never see anything comparable on ARM, simply because the devices will all be locked down.

Have you ever seen anything like this on a previous ARM tablet? What makes you think the Windows-based ones will be any different?

Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop whining about compatibility with windows and start putting your money where your mouth is, to economy of linux ...

I didn't want Windows 7, yet.

[Anonymous Coward]

With the purchase of a new computer come windows pre-installed. $200 dollars wasted for window 7 ultimate to only be replaced by GNU/Linux {Red Hat}. Most people who dont want windows still have to pay the M$crosoft tax.

History repeating ... computing underground scene

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot how it all started out: home computing at first was a DIY activity. It gradually but steadily gained popularity until businesses jumped in and until the Big Blue took note and created first "serious" PC as we know it. We can get back and reinvent it all. Unlike back then, today we have ready Linux. I predict that next big surprise (for those not already following the hacker/maker subculture) will be strong fervent community of competing open gadgets of different flavors, something like colorful mixture the 8bit microcomputing/home computing scene of the '80s was. Today, relatively powerful 32bit microcontrollers and high-resolution color LCD's are ubiquitous components and it is not impossible that soon we will be making, or buying kits, or even assembled open design Linux tablets from e-bay.

would you stop with this shit already?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, it's getting really old, SecureBoot will not lock down Linux or any other of your favourites hippie operating systems, there has been tons of this shitty articles on /., just stop with this lie, good grief

troll?

[drinkypoo]

You idiots don't know how to moderate and should turn in your geek cards immediately. I strongly believe everything I said below including the bits about fucking oneself. Don't tell me what to do, what I should believe, or to be happy with the fucking that electronics manufacturers try to give us. Isn't this supposed to be news for nerds? Nobody who would just give up and say "that's unauthorized" deserves to be permitted to read this site, let alone to moderate.

Guess the moderators work for Microsoft, though, convicted criminals.

I posted on this 2 days ago

[Anonymous Coward]

My post on this 2 days ago was deleted. As I am sure this one will be too. I am a MS engineer. I think the locking of their vendors like is not cool. Make me hate my job even more.

Re:knoppix and other testing / recovery secure boo

[letsief]

First, we just have a terminology difference. I use "BIOS" as a fairly generic term for the boot firmware on the motherboard that executes at power-on. UEFI isn't really the right term for that, because UEFI is just a standard set of interfaces that UEFI-compatible boot firmware can implement. If its important to distinguish between old and new, I'll usually write "legacy BIOS" or "UEFI BIOS".

Second, there definitely are drivers for BIOS. In the legacy BIOS world they're called Option ROMs. In the UEFI world, they're called device drivers. You need those if you want to use a device in the preboot environment. Not every device needs an option ROM. You're not going to need to use, say, a TV tuner in preboot. But, you do want to use SATA/IDE controllers do you can boot of a drive, or maybe you want to use a network card to boot off a network server using PXE. Video is certainly important in preboot too, since you might want to go into the configuration settings and change stuff around. The only question is if you can use some sort of generic UEFI device driver, or if you need a card-specific one.

Third, secure boot ENDS when Windows starts booting. Mainly, UEFI secure boot verifies signatures on UEFI device drivers and the bootloader. Once the bootloader runs, UEFI secure boot is essentially over. The UEFI BIOS is no longer in control of the system, and its up to the bootloader and the OS to check signatures at that point.

Free Market

[ks*nut]

Why hasn't the FTC stopped this stupidity in its tracks? The skeptic in me thinks it may be that the regulatory agencies in the former USA are populated with people who formerly worked for the companies that they are now "regulating." Anyone at FDA want to comment on that?

Re:knoppix and other testing / recovery secure boo

[GameboyRMH]

That actually raises an interesting question though... If you have a motherboard with UEFI secure boot enabled by default, and you try to use an old video card that doesn't have a signed UEFI device driver, how would you even go into the BIOS settings to turn off secure boot?

Good point, a mobo jumper would be useful for this. I think those of us who aren't scared of technology will just have to do without the secure boot feature, turn it off and never turn it back on.

Re:"Freedom" 86 the offending bios

[scharkalvin]

Easy. Re-flash the bios with a non protected one. This might involve physically replacing the bios chip, or perhaps using a jtag in some cases though.

Just avoid the hardware with UEFI

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully.... hopefully we can just avoid all of this UEFI bunk by purchasing open hardware. Unfortunately, Microsoft has a tight grip on the throats of many PC vendors. And it seems, once again Microsoft needs and wants to control how users actually use their hardware. Year after year, bandaids and patches are put on things to help to try and secure Windows, but it just makes Windows more bloated and now we have to deal with these silly hardware changes. I don't think this will have too much of an impact, Intel based hardware will still be fine which is where most of the user base is anyway.

Re:Just avoid the hardware with UEFI

[crutchy]

Dell is shit anyway (and so are most other Windows OEMs)

Just buy a mobo from your local pyewta corner shop and you're all good. There will always be Taiwanese companies making mobos for sale on their own (which means no UEFI lock-in).

Replacing a mobo is a piece of cake nowadays. You don't even need to buy CPU goop in a separate tube any more (it comes pre-gooped on CPUs now)
br i dunno why everyone jumping up and down. maybe its a slow news day, or maybe everyone has no life and we need to bash microsoft to keep things interesting. i love a good dot-slashing too, but i'd rather pick a target that is more easily upset :P

KillBill-bit

[Anonymous Coward]

UEFI is another killbit for Windows Vista Revisited.

Really?

[skyggen]

Has secure anything ever stopped anyone from doing anything ever?

Want to buy some software to write UEFI bioses

[lsatenstein]

Even if the bios is from read-only memory, it has to execute some code to verify that the software to be next loaded is valid. That software, be it grub or the Windows loader, has a signature. All that is necessary is to have a software that provides the correct signature and the boot sequence will continue.l
Alternatively, you let Windows Boot, and use Windows software to reload the alternative,

There is always a way to use your own software. The best way is to just not purchase windows ARM based products.

No. Submitter totally misinterpreted.

[Sloppy]

More question mark abuse, I see. Mod submitter overrated. Or maybe Garrett got confused about what he was talking about.

There are three(!) totally seperate issues here, all being conflated as though they were the same thing:

1. How to build a "secure" system, where secure is defined in terms of preventing things from happen that the user doesn't want, and in this case we're concentrating on situations where the user isn't mysterious code with kernel mode.
2. How to conform to the UEFI secure boot spec, so that you can run whatever the hell you want on your UEFI computer.
3. Contractual obligations that Microsoft is imposing on manufacturers who want Microsoft logos on their products.

Many people are flaming Microsoft here. Fine. Fuck Microsoft. Now, that aside...

When Garrett starts saying things like "Signing the kernel isn't enough. Signed Linux kernels must refuse to load any unsigned kernel modules," he isn't talking about Microsoft or UEFI specs. He's talking about actual security -- how he thinks Linux ought to work, in order to protect users from running unknown kernel-mode code. He's not talking about Secure Boot (TM), he's talking about secure boot^H^H^H^H operation. Once your kernel has booted, UEFI specs are irrelevant, because you're not interacting with UEFI anymore and control of the machine is in the hands of the kernel, to protect or lose.

Once you've got your kernel signed and UEFI trusts the signer and it boots, you have solved the big UEFI interoperability problem that everyone is complaining about, and the kernel loading unsigned drivers doesn't change that a bit. At that point, you've got your machine working, and Linux is "secure boot compatible."

Refusing to load unsigned drivers is a way to take advantage of what UEFI secure boot ostensibly intends to offer users, as opposed to sacrificing the security which Secure Boot may offer by treating it merely as a compatibility obstacle.

BTW, I hope this whole signed kernel module issue makes people think back to Torvalds-vs-Tanenbaum. We all know who won, but are you still sure who was right?

Re: Frog gits should get the fuck out of Slashdot

[Hognoxious]

No, a hell if I know is the offspring of an elephant and a rhyno.

In theory yes, but in practice my hovercraft is full of eels.

Re:knoppix and other testing / recovery secure boo

[letsief]

I fully intend to keep UEFI secure boot turned on whenever possible. It's a very useful security feature. We're already seeing some malware that modifies the Windows bootloader to get around 64-bit Windows code signing checks.

"Forgetting who runs the signing service?"

[IBitOBear]

Say What?

Who runs the signing service is the _entire_ point. Saying that is like saying "forgetting the death and distruction for a moment" in the second paragraph on your "what is wrong with nuclear weapons" paper.

Nobody has _any_ problems wiht signed boot loaders if the people who OWN THE COMPUTER have are the people who get to sign the code.

The problem is that the people who make the bios are the ones who get to sign the code.

So forgetting who will have the keys to your car, and house, you can just sleep tight with only being able to start your car or enter or exit your home with express permissions from the on-star lady okay?

That's not hyperbole. The "we own the keys to your computer" would be very like requiring you to have a body scan before you can enter your car or house so that it is known that you are not carying contraband (say that copy of [your religious text here] or any person who isn't on the "approved rider or resident" list maintianed by General Motors).

The "who gets to decide these things for you" is the only and entire problem.

Re:"Forgetting who runs the signing service?"

[letsief]

What's the alternative? For the vast majority of people, its much, much better to have a small set of trusted third parties that will sign boot code. I know I don't want to have to keep a signing key in a protected place, and have to take it out and use it to sign code whenever I want to update an option ROM or bootloader.

The compromise on x86 systems seems like a good approach. Microsoft will run a signing service, but if people want to swap out the trust anchors and stand up their own signing service, they can. That's not going to be easy for people to do, but I really don't see an alternative. What am I missing?

If you have a problme with the MAFIAA you don't

[IBitOBear]

If you have a problme with the MAFIAA you don't fix your problem by then _joining_ the MAFIAA.

Quite frankly the problem with UEFI is that it is broken in it's _founding_ _assumptions_. Namly it assumes that the hardware manufacturer or BIOS writer is the "correct" person to have the boot-keys to the device. That is, it assumes that the computer shoudl not be controlled by its rightful owner.

If the system were even in the correct neighborhood of "correct" the system would require that the root key would be constructed by the owner of each device and that said owner would then have a means to exclusively sign the boot loaders of their choice. This would not be hard to do in any technological way.

Once this was done, then when _I_, as the owner of my device, were to buy Windows 8, or Red Hat, or build-my-own loader for some other purpose, or add memtest86+ to my box, I would use my key to sign my installs to prevent tampering.

The UEFI assumption is that I souldn't be able to sign my system to prevent tampering by, say, Micorosoft by securing my system with my own keys and then running Windows as I see fit.

So yea, I don't see why Red Hat should "join" (e.g. buy in with a hefty cash bribe) UEFI for the right to be one of the anti-user "decider" guys when they beleive the apprach is broken by design.

Re:If you have a problme with the MAFIAA you don't

[letsief]

UEFI secure boot isn't incompatible with your idea. You'd still need some standardized interfaces for signing code and verifying that code at boot. The main differences would be trust anchor management and the signing process. But, the architecture of UEFI secure boot is absolutely compatible with the idea that the device owner can determine what code should run. Microsoft's requirement for x86 systems pretty much mandates it. It's Microsoft's requirements for ARM systems that are incompatible.

But, your proposed solution is awful for the vast majority of people. How are novice users going to sign the boot code on their systems? Your saying every single person is going to have to securely manage a private signing key for every device they have. To update code, that user is going to have to pull out that private signing key, sign the code they want to update their system to run, and then update the code. For home users, that sounds incredibly complicated. For corporations, it doesn't lend itself well to automation. It's only good for enthusiasts.

Re: Frog gits should get the fuck out of Slashdot

[Guignol]

So, would having frog gits get the fuck out of slashdot have your nipples explode with delight ?

The risk is hollow

[Anonymous Coward]

If the technical brilliance involved with the wonders of Jailbroken iOS devices, OSX86 and countless other 'enabling' projects is any indication - any attempt to really stop people from running other OSes will only slow people down from trying other software. It will similarly propel others to try even harder. Regardless, geeks like to tinker and play around with various options. An operating system that provides as much openness as Linux or BSD will always be in sufficient demand to wage a battle to circumvent silly security technologies designed to impair the fundamential functionality of the hardware platform.

Anyway, whatever, if Microsoft wants to give us more fodder and employ some security nuts, I'm fine with it. It won't really change anything in the big picture.

Re:The risk is hollow

[jamessnell]

So say we all.