Slashdot Mirror
Why Linux On Microsoft Surface Is a Tough Challenge
hypnosec writes "With Linux enthusiasts and distro publishers eagerly waiting for a solution to Microsoft's UEFI SecureBoot, there are those who have already looked at the viability of Linux on Microsoft Surface tablet. Matthew Garrett, a.k.a. UEFI-guru, has revealed that those who are keeping their fingers crossed and hoping to find run Linux on Microsoft's tablet are on an uphill walk and it doesn't seem to be an easy one. So why is this? The answer is in the manner in which Microsoft has restricted the Surface from loading non-signed software / binaries by implementing UEFI SecureBoot. Microsoft has loaded on the ARM based tablet its private key instead of the 'Microsoft Windows UEFI Driver Publisher' key, which is needed to sign non-Microsoft software like Linux distributions or loaders. So, no publisher key = no signed non-Microsoft binary = no Linux."
Whether Secure Boot makes your system more secure is still up in the air.
What does UEFI do? It lets us move past many of the ancient holdovers from 30 years ago that imposed silly limits on PCs, like 2TB limits on the boot drive, the MBR and associated partitioning scheme (GPT is much cleaner.) It also removes all the 16-bit, 1MB memory window limitations at boot time, moving the processors directly into 64-bit on startup and never leaving. All the archaic stuff moved into a compatibility module that can be turned on and off as you see fit.
Best of luck to you, I hope you enjoy MIPS. Every x86 board vendor has moved to UEFI.
MS made (and still makes) some of the first and best mass-market ergonomic keyboards. It was apparently actually a response to an internal problem; too many of their employees were getting RSIs and the best solution was to manufacture their own improved keyboard design. MS also makes some of the best general-purpose mice (1000 DPI, 5 buttons, excellent optical sensor, cheap) and laptop mice. They have competition in all those areas, and some of their more exotic designs haven't fared too well, but the mainstream Intellimouse designs have gone through something like eight generations of steady sales. I don't know how well they've done on the webcam market, though.
Also, since we're talking hardware, the Xbox and Xbox 360, while very expensive to make and taking a long time to recoup that investment, are certainly products which "did not tank". The Kinect has sold fantastically, although the gen1 model is feeling a little gen1 these days.
As for Surface... that remains to be seen. The lockdown on the UEFI and bootloader is a pain (personally) and will cost them a few sales (some portion of Slashdotters who would otherwise buy a widescreen tablet with a really nice cover/keyboard/trackpad accessory). Beyond that... it remains to be seen. The Surface Pro is even more a mystery in terms of market response.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
None of the prior-generation x86 Windows tablets ran an OS that was really touch-friendly. The software, even more so than the hardware, crippled them as products. Additionally, the hardware has come a long, long way. Tablet PCs used to come in two form factors:
1. Badly overpriced/underpowered laptops with funky screen hinges, styluses, and mediocre battery life,
2. Very thick and heavy (for a handheld device) "slates" with high prices, poor performance, no easy way to use them like a laptop, probably a stylus, and mediocre battery life.
#1 achieved some popularity in workplaces and university campuses, where the ability to take notes and documents on a reasonably portable device that could also run "real programs" was useful, but they were never a commercial hit and until software like OneNote started appearing, there wasn't a lot that took advantage of their unique functionality. For the same price, you could get a more portable and durable ultra-light laptop, or a more powerful and durable conventional laptop, or a vastly more powerful non-tablet laptop. For a lower price, you could get a more powerful and durable small laptop, or a much more powerful (though less portable) typical laptop. With tablet functionality imposing such a hit on the performance and cost, and the software not there to back it up, of course they weren't popular.
#2 was even worse off. Although slightly more durable (no easy way to cover the screen though, unlike the convertible clamshell designs) and more portable (no keyboard, etc.), they were worse off for software (some programs just can't be used without a keyboard, and the on-screen keyboards take up too many pixels and are a pain to use) and were so niche that they had very little to drive the price down (convertible tablets had a reasonable amount of competition, with most major laptop vendors offering at least one model at a time in the last decade or so). Combined with their crippling inability to be used as a typical laptop (no built-in stand, no convenient way to offer peripherals), of course they sold terribly.
The world is different now. The introduction of cheap and accurate (if not precise) capacitive touchscreens has made multi-touch a far more common tablet interface than stylus digitizers. Low-power CPUs and high-capacity batteries have more than doubled tablet battery life, even as the devices have gotten thinner and lighter yet also more powerful. Relatively cheap and widely available solid-state storage has drastically improved performance, weight, battery life, and durability of modern tablets compared to their predecessors. The earmarks of the old tablet form factors are all but gone, even as the general classes of form factor - convertible and slate - still exist. Those lines are blurring now too, though.
On the software side, multi-touch has made interacting with a tablet much easier and more practical. Largely as a result of the rise in touch-driven phones, users are much more familiar with interacting with a computing device via touch - it is, after all, a natural paradigm, and one which the old tablets typically didn't support well if at all - and developers are much more familiar with writing touch-driven software. The hard-learned lessons of what makes a touch interface usable are finally being embraced by OS and app developers alike. Similarly, the importance of low battery utilization in apps has finally penetrated, and developers are learning to code appropriately. Tablet hardware (at a reasonable price) is finally capable of supporting "real" software - full web browsers and office suites, high-quality games and powerful utility apps, slick media players (and storage for their media) and tools for photographers and artists - in form factors that were before barely usable for handwritten notes and barely capable of running anything else. To find and buy all that lovely new software, built-in app stores are now common. To the user they provide convenience and at least some safety against malware, to the developer they offer di
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
If I see the practice of artificially restricting what software the purchaser of hardware can run as heinous, then why wouldn't I try to crack the DRM?
Because you have to put $900 in Microsoft's pocket for the privilege of trying.
If you were somehow getting the thing for free, I could understand your reasoning. Maybe if the thing only cost $49 (and was a loss leader), I could understand your reasoning as well. But it's not free, it's not under $100, it's not even close. There's a lot of better things I could do with $900 than buy a piece of crippled hardware hoping to get Linux running on it and show MS that "DRM is just a waste of resources". Even if you do get Linux running on the thing, so that many more people could shell out $900 to do the same thing, Microsoft will just be laughing all the way to the bank.
If you really have that much spare time and money, why not work on something more productive, like fixing some of the many outstanding problems and deficiencies that Linux is still plagued by? There's lots of other hardware out there that Linux runs sub-optimally on; go buy some of that HW and fix the problems.
Hackers were able to get Android running even on an iPhone. I don't think the Surface will be a technical impossibility getting Android running on it... the only question will be if hackers are willing to devote the time and energy to it.
IMO it's just not worth it. Don't buy the crap from MS :)