How is that position 'indefensible'? It's exactly the same position we are in now - and have been in for decades - with existing BIOS systems. And I'm not sure what vendor lockin you are talking about, as i said it's only even any kind of an issue if you have UEFI hardware and it's windows 8 certified and it doesn't have any keys other than microsoft's installed and you don't want to use a bootloader signed with microsoft's key and you don't want to sign it with your own key and you don't want to turn secureboot off. You can install any key for any os you want or you can turn it off...what more do you want?
Which would come entirely under the exception which I specifically added to my post in contrast to the grandparent and leads us to ask; did you really read the post you are replying to? This is the one which makes Microsoft evil and Google only slightly mean.
Which is exactly why the initial comment about 'proprietary software' is patently false, because it's overly generalised.
If you have a proprietary program which processes data in any way then it is possible for it to do secret transformations on it or store parts of that data in undocumented formats which cannot be used elsewhere. Any FOSS program comes with the source code which fully documents those transformations and which can be adapted. This means that any proprietary software is a potential threat and should not be trusted without reason.
That still doesn't take anything away. It's obviously not be ideal but the fact is using it doesn't take anything away. You are right that proprietary software can be used in that way, but not all proprietary software - and that includes services you don't control, particularly web-based - do that.
He's even justified clearly why, by using proprietary software you are imposing problems on everyone else. Please look up the "network effect"
No, my using a proprietary program impacts nobody, unless i'm sharing proprietary formats, which is not the same thing. If i'm transporting jpegs or latex or obj or whatever then it doesn't matter whether i'm using proprietary or free software, the only thing that matters there is the file format. I've used Blender to create models collaborated with guys using Max and Maya with no problems, them using proprietary modeling programs had no effect on my use of Blender.
Free software can't pervert standards and be malicious just as a proprietary software can
Ubuntu does! So yes it can! Perhaps you should give your definition of 'proprietary software', because you clearly think it has something to do with proprietary standards and paying corporations and treacherous computing...but it doesn't.
The use of proprietary programs does take a lot of things away as explained more than once
No, i simply refuse to accept reductio ad absurdum as justification for your point of view.
but if you refuse to understand and be part of the problem it is your choice.
Yet you persist in your ridiculous arguments.
You are nothing more than a corporate shill.
You only resort to that low level because you can't disprove my point, pathetic. Proof that I am not a shill of any sort nor have an agenda is in that I - unlike you - don't have a view one way or the other on proprietary software vs free software, you clearly do.
Even if you didn't pay for the application. Just by using their standards you are helping them to enforce them
Who's and what standards? Just because it's a proprietary application doesn't mean it uses any particular standards, much less secret or proprietary ones.
And as you keep mentioning, I can't avoid noticing that the one who seems to have an agenda here is you, my good sir. You seem to be going out of your way to try and discredit RMS.
I have no agenda, I just see that his claim is patently false, by comparison you resort to reductio ad absurdum to justify it, clearly it is you that has an agenda. Free software can pervert standards and be malicious just a proprietary software can. Again, the use of a proprietary program does not take anything away, it doesn't make it better in any way, and it certainly grants the use less freedoms, but it doesn't take anything away. The benefits of free software stand on their own without having to spread FUD about proprietary software.
You are giving money and consequently power to corporations that are struggling to take our control over the system we buy from them and impose their standards and policies upon us.
I'm not giving money to anyone, I said 'proprietary application', i didn't say i paid anybody anything, but i see you need that to justify your new extrapolation of your perceived evil to some other ridiculous scenario. Again, I can run a proprietary program on my system and I haven't had anything taken away from me, that's just rubbish propaganda spread by people like you that have an agenda.
Rubbish, if i run a proprietary application on my system i don't end up with a 'locked system', it doesn't enforce any 'controlled standards' and I don't end up with UEFI. I haven't had anything taken away, even if it does aid your agenda to suggest that.
I lost a lot of respect for Stallman when he sunk to the RIAA/MPAA level with statements like 'proprietary software is unethical because it takes away users' rights', of course it doesn't take away anything, just like music piracy doesn't take away profits like the RIAA/MPAA claim, they can't take away something of yours if it's something you never had in the first place. You may not have been granted rights you would otherwise get with free software, but nothing was taken away.
It's not discoverable though, it's exactly like Windows 8, same problem of being horribly unintuitive. Like that swiping down a little bit from the top where the sound and wifi indicators are to reveal a context menu and then moving left and right to change the menu between those icons is just awful from a usability perspective, it looks neat in a video though.
I tried the preview build of it on my nexus 7 and while it seemed to work ok - although a LOT of functions didn't work (not implemented yet) and most of it was populated with dummy data - I didn't really see why I would want it.
On ARM based systems you cannot turn off SecureBoot
Not without a hack no, instead of using UEFI and secureboot they could have done what other ARM devices do by locking out root access and/or using a non-standard bootloader (which is often locked), but the result is the same.
How is that trolling? If they can't retroactively revoke Linux support then the only way Microsoft would get control with Surface would be if you for some reason had to then buy a future Surface that couldn't run Linux - why would you have to buy a Surface running Windows if you didn't even want Windows? it's just generic hardware - and even then why lock out Linux when you've already bought Windows and Surface and somehow they've managed to lock you into a Surface without Windows? Why would they even need you to run Windows if you're in some way locked to buying their hardware and software (even if you aren't going to use that software) anyway? The GGP suggests there is some 'embrace, extend, extinguish' going on, but that doesn't make any sense, what exactly are they embracing and extending? And how would one be locked into buying Surface hardware if they only ever ran Linux on it?
My point is it won't affect the number of users wanting to run dual boot, they'll either turn secureboot off or use a signed bootloader.
Add to this that restricted boot significantly increases the difficulty / technical expertise need to install an alternate OS (including an older release of windows, which was more-or-less the GGGGP's point).
How exactly? Every mainstream distro will ship with a signed bootloader or instructions to turn off secureboot (one bios switch), that's hardly 'significantly more difficult', in fact that step is a whole lot more trivial than the existing process of creating a bootable USB disk and setting the PC to boot from that. Do you also complain about the 'significant difficulty' in the one switch required to allow Android to install untrusted source applications?
Before UEFI and SecureBoot if a business wanted to load an alternative OS on their client PCs it was a simple matter.
It still is a simple matter, even if you have a UEFI machine and it's windows 8 certified and it doesn't have any keys other than microsofts and you don't want to use a bootloader signed with microsoft's key and you don't want to sign it with your own key and install that then it is still trivial to turn secureboot off.
But once the frogs appear used to the warmth, the heat will be turned up and they'll be extinguished.
What is it you think they are trying to Embrace, Extend and Extinguish? Your conspiracy theory makes no sense, they can't retroactively disable the ability to boot Linux on Surface PCs and if people are using Surface devices to run Linux and then Microsoft releases a Surface that cannot run Linux then people who want to run Linux will just buy another device.
Because they're the ones that aren't 100% committed to Linux or an alternate OS, and they are not only OK with running windows, but choose to do so often enough that they keep it available in dual boot.
So? It doesn't matter that people aren't '100% committed to an alternative OS', in fact the best scenario is that they not be 100% committed to any OS.
That said, I think it WILL have an effect on the number of users running dual boot, and maybe even some that planned on running an alternate OS almost all the time.
but I think it's giving them, mostly, the facility to lock out competitors on MS 'subsidized' devices like Surface.
I suspect that if that were the case then they would have prevented SecureBoot from being turned off on the Surface Pro, but they didn't, you can turn it off and install Linux on it if you want.
Slashdot Mirror
How is that position 'indefensible'? It's exactly the same position we are in now - and have been in for decades - with existing BIOS systems. And I'm not sure what vendor lockin you are talking about, as i said it's only even any kind of an issue if you have UEFI hardware and it's windows 8 certified and it doesn't have any keys other than microsoft's installed and you don't want to use a bootloader signed with microsoft's key and you don't want to sign it with your own key and you don't want to turn secureboot off. You can install any key for any os you want or you can turn it off...what more do you want?
Which would come entirely under the exception which I specifically added to my post in contrast to the grandparent and leads us to ask; did you really read the post you are replying to? This is the one which makes Microsoft evil and Google only slightly mean.
Which is exactly why the initial comment about 'proprietary software' is patently false, because it's overly generalised.
If you have a proprietary program which processes data in any way then it is possible for it to do secret transformations on it or store parts of that data in undocumented formats which cannot be used elsewhere. Any FOSS program comes with the source code which fully documents those transformations and which can be adapted. This means that any proprietary software is a potential threat and should not be trusted without reason.
That still doesn't take anything away. It's obviously not be ideal but the fact is using it doesn't take anything away. You are right that proprietary software can be used in that way, but not all proprietary software - and that includes services you don't control, particularly web-based - do that.
He's even justified clearly why, by using proprietary software you are imposing problems on everyone else. Please look up the "network effect"
No, my using a proprietary program impacts nobody, unless i'm sharing proprietary formats, which is not the same thing. If i'm transporting jpegs or latex or obj or whatever then it doesn't matter whether i'm using proprietary or free software, the only thing that matters there is the file format. I've used Blender to create models collaborated with guys using Max and Maya with no problems, them using proprietary modeling programs had no effect on my use of Blender.
Was, not is.
Ok so what is the desktop OS of choice then?
Free software can't pervert standards and be malicious just as a proprietary software can
Ubuntu does! So yes it can! Perhaps you should give your definition of 'proprietary software', because you clearly think it has something to do with proprietary standards and paying corporations and treacherous computing...but it doesn't.
The use of proprietary programs does take a lot of things away as explained more than once
No, i simply refuse to accept reductio ad absurdum as justification for your point of view.
but if you refuse to understand and be part of the problem it is your choice.
Yet you persist in your ridiculous arguments.
You are nothing more than a corporate shill.
You only resort to that low level because you can't disprove my point, pathetic. Proof that I am not a shill of any sort nor have an agenda is in that I - unlike you - don't have a view one way or the other on proprietary software vs free software, you clearly do.
Even if you didn't pay for the application. Just by using their standards you are helping them to enforce them
Who's and what standards? Just because it's a proprietary application doesn't mean it uses any particular standards, much less secret or proprietary ones.
And as you keep mentioning, I can't avoid noticing that the one who seems to have an agenda here is you, my good sir. You seem to be going out of your way to try and discredit RMS.
I have no agenda, I just see that his claim is patently false, by comparison you resort to reductio ad absurdum to justify it, clearly it is you that has an agenda. Free software can pervert standards and be malicious just a proprietary software can. Again, the use of a proprietary program does not take anything away, it doesn't make it better in any way, and it certainly grants the use less freedoms, but it doesn't take anything away.
The benefits of free software stand on their own without having to spread FUD about proprietary software.
You are giving money and consequently power to corporations that are struggling to take our control over the system we buy from them and impose their standards and policies upon us.
I'm not giving money to anyone, I said 'proprietary application', i didn't say i paid anybody anything, but i see you need that to justify your new extrapolation of your perceived evil to some other ridiculous scenario. Again, I can run a proprietary program on my system and I haven't had anything taken away from me, that's just rubbish propaganda spread by people like you that have an agenda.
It's all on their website.
Proprietary software enforces controlled standards, locked systems, treacherous computing like UEFI.
Rubbish, if i run a proprietary application on my system i don't end up with a 'locked system', it doesn't enforce any 'controlled standards' and I don't end up with UEFI. I haven't had anything taken away, even if it does aid your agenda to suggest that.
I lost a lot of respect for Stallman when he sunk to the RIAA/MPAA level with statements like 'proprietary software is unethical because it takes away users' rights', of course it doesn't take away anything, just like music piracy doesn't take away profits like the RIAA/MPAA claim, they can't take away something of yours if it's something you never had in the first place. You may not have been granted rights you would otherwise get with free software, but nothing was taken away.
...using your logic Windows is *THE* desktop OS of choice and Linux & OSX are just fragmenting the market?
glad is uses every side of the screen
It's not discoverable though, it's exactly like Windows 8, same problem of being horribly unintuitive. Like that swiping down a little bit from the top where the sound and wifi indicators are to reveal a context menu and then moving left and right to change the menu between those icons is just awful from a usability perspective, it looks neat in a video though.
Yeah maybe on a nexus 10 or something.
I tried the preview build of it on my nexus 7 and while it seemed to work ok - although a LOT of functions didn't work (not implemented yet) and most of it was populated with dummy data - I didn't really see why I would want it.
Only true on X86 based devices.
That's why i wrote Surface Pro.
On ARM based systems you cannot turn off SecureBoot
Not without a hack no, instead of using UEFI and secureboot they could have done what other ARM devices do by locking out root access and/or using a non-standard bootloader (which is often locked), but the result is the same.
How is that trolling? If they can't retroactively revoke Linux support then the only way Microsoft would get control with Surface would be if you for some reason had to then buy a future Surface that couldn't run Linux - why would you have to buy a Surface running Windows if you didn't even want Windows? it's just generic hardware - and even then why lock out Linux when you've already bought Windows and Surface and somehow they've managed to lock you into a Surface without Windows? Why would they even need you to run Windows if you're in some way locked to buying their hardware and software (even if you aren't going to use that software) anyway?
The GGP suggests there is some 'embrace, extend, extinguish' going on, but that doesn't make any sense, what exactly are they embracing and extending? And how would one be locked into buying Surface hardware if they only ever ran Linux on it?
I have "invested" in Android (phone and tablet) but I most certainly need a proper OS to do real work on, whether it's Windows, Linux or OSX.
Yeah that's my point, many of those who are invested in the google platform can be OS agnostic as far as their desktop is concerned.
So? What point are you trying to make?
My point is it won't affect the number of users wanting to run dual boot, they'll either turn secureboot off or use a signed bootloader.
Add to this that restricted boot significantly increases the difficulty / technical expertise need to install an alternate OS (including an older release of windows, which was more-or-less the GGGGP's point).
How exactly? Every mainstream distro will ship with a signed bootloader or instructions to turn off secureboot (one bios switch), that's hardly 'significantly more difficult', in fact that step is a whole lot more trivial than the existing process of creating a bootable USB disk and setting the PC to boot from that. Do you also complain about the 'significant difficulty' in the one switch required to allow Android to install untrusted source applications?
Before UEFI and SecureBoot if a business wanted to load an alternative OS on their client PCs it was a simple matter.
It still is a simple matter, even if you have a UEFI machine and it's windows 8 certified and it doesn't have any keys other than microsofts and you don't want to use a bootloader signed with microsoft's key and you don't want to sign it with your own key and install that then it is still trivial to turn secureboot off.
Not to existing devices.
But once the frogs appear used to the warmth, the heat will be turned up and they'll be extinguished.
What is it you think they are trying to Embrace, Extend and Extinguish? Your conspiracy theory makes no sense, they can't retroactively disable the ability to boot Linux on Surface PCs and if people are using Surface devices to run Linux and then Microsoft releases a Surface that cannot run Linux then people who want to run Linux will just buy another device.
The hell they can't! They're the key-holders, they can up-end the situation any second t hey choose.
How? ...or was that whoosh that i missed? ;)
Because they're the ones that aren't 100% committed to Linux or an alternate OS, and they are not only OK with running windows, but choose to do so often enough that they keep it available in dual boot.
So? It doesn't matter that people aren't '100% committed to an alternative OS', in fact the best scenario is that they not be 100% committed to any OS.
but they didn't
Yet.
They can't retroactively do it either.
That said, I think it WILL have an effect on the number of users running dual boot, and maybe even some that planned on running an alternate OS almost all the time.
Why would it impact them in that case?
but I think it's giving them, mostly, the facility to lock out competitors on MS 'subsidized' devices like Surface.
I suspect that if that were the case then they would have prevented SecureBoot from being turned off on the Surface Pro, but they didn't, you can turn it off and install Linux on it if you want.