On ARM there is indications that UEFI should not be something you can disable. ARM being the "technology of the future" at least in the tablet space sets MS up to keep the hardware everyone is theoretically going to move to lockable. DRM is for the most part illegal to break, that would make it illegal to do what you want with your hardware. MS succeeds in pushing this because anyone who wants to make any money in the noncompetitive hardware market wants to ship a windows ready product, that can be explained further by the following from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface#Booting
- Microsoft will demand that computers with the "Designed for Windows 8" logo to use UEFI with secure boot (which will only allow signed software to run on the device) enabled by default.[39][40] Red Hat developer Matthew Garrett raised concerns over the requirement for secure booting to be enabled by default and Microsoft responded by saying that there was no mandate from Microsoft that prevents secure booting from being disabled in firmware or that keys could not be updated and managed.[39][40] Microsoft later reversed this position, mandating that disabling SecureBoot on ARM-based systems "MUST NOT be possible."[41]
Thankfully due probably to Mathew Garret griping about this crap you can see the following, from the same wiki page
As of July 30 2012, the document requires that x86 and x86-64 devices have "secure boot" enabled by default. However, it requires that the firmware include an option to disable secure boot, and also a custom secure boot mode that provides the ability to add cryptographic signatures from vendors other than Microsoft. ARM devices are required to have secure boot enabled by default, and are required not to provide either an option to disable it, nor a custom mode that allows the user to add alternate signatures.[54]
This being a "security" option and not a DRM option at least means you wont go to jail for installing slackware...
Good question!
Yes... apparently according to this
http://askubuntu.com/questions/91484/how-to-boot-ubuntu-from-efi-uefi
(briefed from the link)
1. Use a live CD which matches the UEFI architecture. Mostly x86-64. Boot up the live cd
(instructions continue)
2. Once the live system is running set through the terminal a root password by typing
sudo passwd root
Then log out from the default live cd user and log in as root in gui mode. Plug in the hard drive. I use a USB3 portable HDD but in most cases the hard drive is a SATA internal drive. Anyway, be sure you've BACKED UP ALL YOUR DATA, cause the process is going to wipe off everything on the drive..(instructions continue)
3. Install the system into the hard drive "/" partition and remember to point here the bootloader (GRUB 1.99) to install to. If you've created a separete "/boot" partition, you have to choose that one for the bootloader installation.
4. Here comes the part from the UEFIBooting guide:
Building GRUB2 (U)EFI.(instructions continue)
5. Open Synaptic and remove all grub packages and install just the grub-efi packages (amd64 for me) and all the necessary dependencies. Once the installation is over, run sudo update-grub in the terminal.
(instructions continue)
This is _not_ DRM, its a security implementation to prevent malware from writing to the boot processes and preempting any possible Operating System security. It does seem a bit like we're trying to right the leaning tower of pizza with a bomb on the low side to see if it will right itself again!
I'm sorry to be so obvious but this needs to be kept far away from the association of DRM.
Here is a rather awesome talk about UEFI and RedHat's work on it. Basically his experience was its very buggy and there are already implementations of it out there that they aren't even going to try to patch. At some point this just seems like a way for some company to add in just one more bit of junkware/middleware that everyone has to rely on and no one has any approving control over. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2aq5M3Q76U
Part of the spec says that it must have a disable option, the problem creeps up with inexperienced users who may have tried Linux/Unix or whatever that would usually be available seriously reducing the spread of *nix.
In fact I just submited an RMA to my ATI card I bought to switch eveything over to linux. I foolheartedly though ATI may have gotten their stuff together after being aquired by AMD. No so much, I spent a solid week trying to figure out what the problem was with wine and a crashing X session, come to find out it was just the wonderfully unimpressive drivers.
I think I'll probably end up buying more. 3$ for a DVD, its strange though the stuff I buy is worse quality than what I could have downloaded. And theres people arguing in aribic while the camera gets shuffled about that was recording the screen. I suppose the middle east is far removed from the long arm of coporate sponsorship.
Its not necessarily throttling but prioritizing data. Some of it is simply time sensitive, I work on SATCOM and a 2-3 second delay can really put a hamper on the ability to communicate. VOIP traffic is relatively small bandwidth, in reality so is web browsing. On top of that web browsing is (theoretically) click, read, click read so there's going to be even less of a demand from such users. Done correctly they could keep P2P traffic and large FTP transfers at nearly the same rate. Ping times don't completely dictate your bandwidth.
They dont thats the problem. They create their own standards that become popular because the use of their products is so widespread. This stifiles other projects that cant meet exact standards as say IE does because its a closed end product.
Do you really think its reasonable to get the average user to use FTP to find and download a web browser? Yes its absoloutley possible to download something like that with FTP, finding it and getting it with only FTP isnt reasonable. Microsofts business model is based on the fact that its "easy to get going and use". Microsoft did themselves good by making windows a more "web based" experience in 98 and ME, then it looks more like it was poor judgement on their part rather than trying to push their products on their customers.
Honestly I think this is an atempt at opera to breathe life into the browser that costs money in a market where everyone else gives it away. I cant see it being sustanable, moreover some web sites require the use of IE because of certain features. Obviously you can do most of what you need with alternatives but there are a select few that require it. Microsofts market shre keeps itself where it is because of compatability. Its a sad and frustrating fact but its how things are. When other products offer the same compatability then we will see microsoft fading into the crowd of other products.
Slashdot Mirror
On ARM there is indications that UEFI should not be something you can disable. ARM being the "technology of the future" at least in the tablet space sets MS up to keep the hardware everyone is theoretically going to move to lockable. DRM is for the most part illegal to break, that would make it illegal to do what you want with your hardware. MS succeeds in pushing this because anyone who wants to make any money in the noncompetitive hardware market wants to ship a windows ready product, that can be explained further by the following from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface#Booting
- Microsoft will demand that computers with the "Designed for Windows 8" logo to use UEFI with secure boot (which will only allow signed software to run on the device) enabled by default.[39][40] Red Hat developer Matthew Garrett raised concerns over the requirement for secure booting to be enabled by default and Microsoft responded by saying that there was no mandate from Microsoft that prevents secure booting from being disabled in firmware or that keys could not be updated and managed.[39][40] Microsoft later reversed this position, mandating that disabling SecureBoot on ARM-based systems "MUST NOT be possible."[41]
Thankfully due probably to Mathew Garret griping about this crap you can see the following, from the same wiki page
As of July 30 2012, the document requires that x86 and x86-64 devices have "secure boot" enabled by default. However, it requires that the firmware include an option to disable secure boot, and also a custom secure boot mode that provides the ability to add cryptographic signatures from vendors other than Microsoft. ARM devices are required to have secure boot enabled by default, and are required not to provide either an option to disable it, nor a custom mode that allows the user to add alternate signatures.[54]
This being a "security" option and not a DRM option at least means you wont go to jail for installing slackware...
This is why news stories are crafted from blog's that are completely fabricated... er wait
Good question! .(instructions continue)
Yes... apparently according to this
http://askubuntu.com/questions/91484/how-to-boot-ubuntu-from-efi-uefi
(briefed from the link)
1. Use a live CD which matches the UEFI architecture. Mostly x86-64. Boot up the live cd (instructions continue)
2. Once the live system is running set through the terminal a root password by typing sudo passwd root
Then log out from the default live cd user and log in as root in gui mode. Plug in the hard drive. I use a USB3 portable HDD but in most cases the hard drive is a SATA internal drive. Anyway, be sure you've BACKED UP ALL YOUR DATA, cause the process is going to wipe off everything on the drive..(instructions continue)
3. Install the system into the hard drive "/" partition and remember to point here the bootloader (GRUB 1.99) to install to. If you've created a separete "/boot" partition, you have to choose that one for the bootloader installation.
4. Here comes the part from the UEFIBooting guide:
Building GRUB2 (U)EFI
5. Open Synaptic and remove all grub packages and install just the grub-efi packages (amd64 for me) and all the necessary dependencies. Once the installation is over, run sudo update-grub in the terminal. (instructions continue)
This is _not_ DRM, its a security implementation to prevent malware from writing to the boot processes and preempting any possible Operating System security. It does seem a bit like we're trying to right the leaning tower of pizza with a bomb on the low side to see if it will right itself again!
I'm sorry to be so obvious but this needs to be kept far away from the association of DRM.
Here is a rather awesome talk about UEFI and RedHat's work on it. Basically his experience was its very buggy and there are already implementations of it out there that they aren't even going to try to patch. At some point this just seems like a way for some company to add in just one more bit of junkware/middleware that everyone has to rely on and no one has any approving control over.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2aq5M3Q76U
Part of the spec says that it must have a disable option, the problem creeps up with inexperienced users who may have tried Linux/Unix or whatever that would usually be available seriously reducing the spread of *nix.
In fact I just submited an RMA to my ATI card I bought to switch eveything over to linux. I foolheartedly though ATI may have gotten their stuff together after being aquired by AMD. No so much, I spent a solid week trying to figure out what the problem was with wine and a crashing X session, come to find out it was just the wonderfully unimpressive drivers.
Now the only excuse I will have not to be having sex is my social ineptitude!
I think I'll probably end up buying more. 3$ for a DVD, its strange though the stuff I buy is worse quality than what I could have downloaded. And theres people arguing in aribic while the camera gets shuffled about that was recording the screen. I suppose the middle east is far removed from the long arm of coporate sponsorship.
Its not necessarily throttling but prioritizing data. Some of it is simply time sensitive, I work on SATCOM and a 2-3 second delay can really put a hamper on the ability to communicate. VOIP traffic is relatively small bandwidth, in reality so is web browsing. On top of that web browsing is (theoretically) click, read, click read so there's going to be even less of a demand from such users. Done correctly they could keep P2P traffic and large FTP transfers at nearly the same rate. Ping times don't completely dictate your bandwidth.
They dont thats the problem. They create their own standards that become popular because the use of their products is so widespread. This stifiles other projects that cant meet exact standards as say IE does because its a closed end product.
Do you really think its reasonable to get the average user to use FTP to find and download a web browser? Yes its absoloutley possible to download something like that with FTP, finding it and getting it with only FTP isnt reasonable. Microsofts business model is based on the fact that its "easy to get going and use". Microsoft did themselves good by making windows a more "web based" experience in 98 and ME, then it looks more like it was poor judgement on their part rather than trying to push their products on their customers. Honestly I think this is an atempt at opera to breathe life into the browser that costs money in a market where everyone else gives it away. I cant see it being sustanable, moreover some web sites require the use of IE because of certain features. Obviously you can do most of what you need with alternatives but there are a select few that require it. Microsofts market shre keeps itself where it is because of compatability. Its a sad and frustrating fact but its how things are. When other products offer the same compatability then we will see microsoft fading into the crowd of other products.