Well do you see any killer feature? To be honest MeeGo, WebOS and Windows Phone aren't objectively bad, the problem is that they aren't better than those that dominate the market so naturally people just stick with what they know. Ubuntu Mobile certainly doesn't seem to be bringing anything compelling to the average consumer that would make them want to give up their Android or iOS devices.
And using the profits of a monopoly is not considered 'leveraging that monopoly' otherwise nobody with a monopoly in any one area would be able to do business in any other market.
Translation: a company prepared to use monopoly rents to establish a presence in other markets. Exactly what anti-trust legislation is supposed to prevent.
You do realize it isn't illegal to have a monopoly don't you? And that the profits of that monopoly can be used to fund other projects in other markets with no restriction?
The problem with ubuntu (and any new mobile OS in the past few years) is that they do not innovate, they simply copy and add a few gimmicks.
That's exactly it! What compelling reason is there that people would want to switch from Android or iOS - the established market players - to Ubuntu Mobile, Windows Phone, Blackberry OS, Tizen, MeeGo, webOS, et. al? None of these have the 'killer feature' and that's why they fail.
how can JB not support your hardware?!? oh, because it's not using drivers written for linux, it's stuff written for dalvik.
So how do you think Ubuntu mobile runs on phones if the drivers were written for Dalvik? Especially given that Ubuntu uses the same drivers as Android. You seem very confused about what drivers and/or Dalvik are, Dalvik is a Virtual Machine, drivers do not run in Dalvik.
The boot loader shim for starting Grub (and thus Linux) did indeed need to be signed by Microsoft. Getting a key from Verisign won't help a bit, unless you plan on building your own hardware, or have enough negotiating power to get hardware vendors to include you key.
It didn't need to be signed with Microsoft's key, it could have been signed with any key and the user just adds that key to the SecureBoot key list on their machine, or they could just turn SecureBoot off and not use it. And no, Linux does not need to be signed with that key either, the grub bootloader shim will ask the user to accept any key from the signed OS that the bootloader shim attempts to load - this should be obvious given that if the OS were signed with an installed key you wouldn't need the shim at all.
Do workstations matter? Every former workstation vendor - Sun, HP, IBM, SGI had dropped their Unix based workstations.
SGI is defunct and has been for years and Sun doesn't do workstation hardware anymore. HP and IBM still do Linux workstations, particularly HP with RHEL and SUSE, I don't see any reason they would drop them just because Microsoft wants SecureBoot on Windows machines.
Surely you don't really believe that Microsoft is all powerful do you? Between the might of Apple, Samsung (with its Chrome products), HP (with its RHEL and SUSE workstations), Intel (as the second largest contributor to Linux) and other influential players like Valve, the open PC cannot be bought out by Microsoft.
Yes it does. First off, you have to jump through many hoops to get a UEFI key.
There is no such thing as a UEFI key.
Secondly, since apparently computer makers have to write their own code to the UEFI spec, they are also responsible for checking that it works with different operating systems.
This is a flaw in Samsung's implementation of UEFI, if they made a mistake in their BIOS code it would be the same.
And I do blame Microsoft because they are the ones who are using their dominant market share to ensure the majority of new computers carry this abomination.
The BIOS is long obsolete, Linux, BSD and OSX have all supported UEFI for a long time, Microsoft is the one that has been languishing in obsolescence and now they have finally caught up. The various directors of the UEFI forum (AMD, American Megatrends, Apple, Dell, HP, IBM, Insyde Software, Intel, Lenovo, Microsoft, and Phoenix Technologies) have been shipping UEFI products for many years.
Yer, that's why the first key in any EFI system is not Microsoft's and other OS builders are not having to go to Microsoft to get their keys signed. Oh wait........
Oh wait what? You mean oh wait, you're wrong. Microsoft's key isn't in my EFI system or my Mac which is also an EFI system. Moreover Microsoft doesn't sign any keys so you're wrong again, they aren't a signing authority, Verisign signs keys and can sign your bootloader with Microsoft's key if you want, or you could use your own key and install it on your system or you could turn SecureBoot off.
Linux and OSX have supported (U)EFI long before Windows and this bug isn't a bug in UEFI, it's a bug in Samsung's product...so again, you're off-topic anti-Microsoft rant has absolutely nothing to do with this subject. The BIOS has long been superseded, Microsoft has just been lagging behind in supporting its successor.
EUFI and Secure Boot both inherently favor large dominant OS players over minority players.
Wrong, EUFI isn't a thing, UEFI doesn't inherently favor anybody in any way and Secure Boot is a feature that you can use if your bootloader is signed or you want to sign it since you just install the key, alternatively you can turn it off if you don't want it and operate just as you always have on other (U)EFI systems - like Macs - and older BIOS systems.
Ah, yes, eloquently stated. And, you know, it's totally okay to do that but let's assume that you've "fucked" the license and governance and your code is great and popular. Now, what stops a company from taking your code and making massive changes to it and shipping that code for mad moneys?
Nothing, who gives a fuck if they do that? If i release code i don't care what people do with it. If i did care i would release it under a specific license or not release it at all.
What forces them to give back their changes that might make that code better?
Why should you be forcing anyone to do anything?
What did you and the community gain by contributing to that company's revenue?
Nothing, why do you have to gain something out of it? If some company uses Linux in a for-profit product but doesn't make any changes and thus doesn't contribute anything back then you're in no different situation with the GPL or other copyleft licenses either.
Well, what if that company then claimed that your code was an unlicensed version of their code and moved to have it remove?
It's going to be pretty obvious if you post it to github - even if you copyright or license it some company could still do the same thing.
Apple doesn't distribute their OS to any other OEMs
So? They produce PCs and are an OS vendor with a significant - and extremely profitable - stake in the market.
and neither HP nor IBM's OSes matter in the context that Microsoft has heavily pushed secure boot in.
Workstations don't matter? You actually believe Linux is so crappy that HP would just drop RHEL and SUSE if Microsoft asked them to? You have some conspiracy theory that Microsoft controls all of these companies and that they could force them to produce only Windows 8 SecureBoot mandatory products? If there is a decline in the PC market it's the consumer market that is going down, in favor of Linux and iOS devices - but even many of the OEMs that do produce Windows machines also produce Linux ones (of course nowhere near as many as the development, testing and support costs aren't worth it for the lack of popularity).
I think you are referring to Microsoft. UEFI Secure Boot is their baby.
UEFI has nothing to do with Microsoft, even Secure Boot isn't a Microsoft thing and this story doesn't have anything to do with Secure Boot anyway...nice attempt to drag this topic into another M$ Windoze bash-fest though.
Other than running the risk of losing volume discounts on Windows licenses.
Bullshit, plenty of big name OEMs make Linux laptops, moreover not all OEMs get volume license discounts and further still you don't need to be a Windows licensee to make Linux laptops (a quick google search will show you many that don't).
So what should one someone who owns a device do when he wants to use the device as a tool but discovers that a particular application is not available for his device because the device's monopoly gatekeeper rejected the concept?
Use a different tool. Sure an iPad is a great device for many things, but developing applications isn't one of them, you can't - for example - run XCode on it.
Agreed. But all the evidence so far suggests there are no major hardware makers who see Linux on the desktop as a viable platform.
Perhaps it isn't, I mean with major missteps like Windows Me and Vista, Linux still failed to get traction in the consumer market, yet Android dominates the ARM personal computing space.
So if a minor maker does, there's a good chance they'd need to have motherboards customised, pushing prices up significantly.
Such is the way with a niche market, supply and demand. These days people seem to prefer devices with a unification of hardware and software rather than separating them. Smart phones, tablets, gaming consoles and pre-build/pre-configured PCs/Macs are hugely popular because most people use them as a tool and don't want to be tweaking them and configuring them, not to mention these days they are cheap enough and last long enough that 'upgrading' an old PC is less and less necessary.
Then every motherboard producer that want a MS certification HAS to implement secure boot.
Every motherboard manufacturer who wants Windows certification for Windows 8 already needs to do that.
And it would not surprise me a bit if by then they want the same restrictions on X86 as they managed to push on ARM devices.
Even if they could do that there is plenty of non-certified hardware and nothing stopping manufacturers from building Linux desktops just like so many do with Android devices - even most Microsoft partners make and sell Android devices.
Well of course you're going to have a hard time with that, success for an operating system requires partnership with hardware vendors or hardware vendors that at least see it as a viable solution. On the desktop, Microsoft has a lot of hardware partners for Windows and Apple simply makes the hardware, in the server market vendors most often choose Linux for their offerings and on mobile Google partnered with various device manufacturers for Android and that's snowballed into many non-partners using it in their products. Sure just about any computing device can run Linux, but without support from hardware partners drivers for all the hardware won't get written for Linux.
There's no reason desktop computer hardware makers - especially non-Microsoft partners - couldn't push Linux if they saw it as viable, just like they do for Android on mobile.
Slashdot Mirror
Well do you see any killer feature? To be honest MeeGo, WebOS and Windows Phone aren't objectively bad, the problem is that they aren't better than those that dominate the market so naturally people just stick with what they know. Ubuntu Mobile certainly doesn't seem to be bringing anything compelling to the average consumer that would make them want to give up their Android or iOS devices.
And using the profits of a monopoly is not considered 'leveraging that monopoly' otherwise nobody with a monopoly in any one area would be able to do business in any other market.
Translation: a company prepared to use monopoly rents to establish a presence in other markets. Exactly what anti-trust legislation is supposed to prevent.
You do realize it isn't illegal to have a monopoly don't you? And that the profits of that monopoly can be used to fund other projects in other markets with no restriction?
The problem with ubuntu (and any new mobile OS in the past few years) is that they do not innovate, they simply copy and add a few gimmicks.
That's exactly it! What compelling reason is there that people would want to switch from Android or iOS - the established market players - to Ubuntu Mobile, Windows Phone, Blackberry OS, Tizen, MeeGo, webOS, et. al? None of these have the 'killer feature' and that's why they fail.
how can JB not support your hardware?!? oh, because it's not using drivers written for linux, it's stuff written for dalvik.
So how do you think Ubuntu mobile runs on phones if the drivers were written for Dalvik? Especially given that Ubuntu uses the same drivers as Android. You seem very confused about what drivers and/or Dalvik are, Dalvik is a Virtual Machine, drivers do not run in Dalvik.
The boot loader shim for starting Grub (and thus Linux) did indeed need to be signed by Microsoft. Getting a key from Verisign won't help a bit, unless you plan on building your own hardware, or have enough negotiating power to get hardware vendors to include you key.
It didn't need to be signed with Microsoft's key, it could have been signed with any key and the user just adds that key to the SecureBoot key list on their machine, or they could just turn SecureBoot off and not use it. And no, Linux does not need to be signed with that key either, the grub bootloader shim will ask the user to accept any key from the signed OS that the bootloader shim attempts to load - this should be obvious given that if the OS were signed with an installed key you wouldn't need the shim at all.
Do workstations matter? Every former workstation vendor - Sun, HP, IBM, SGI had dropped their Unix based workstations.
SGI is defunct and has been for years and Sun doesn't do workstation hardware anymore. HP and IBM still do Linux workstations, particularly HP with RHEL and SUSE, I don't see any reason they would drop them just because Microsoft wants SecureBoot on Windows machines.
The GPL and the Git community are going to break Mr. Softy somewhere around step #2.
Why? This looks pretty much like what Apple does with XCode.
Surely you don't really believe that Microsoft is all powerful do you? Between the might of Apple, Samsung (with its Chrome products), HP (with its RHEL and SUSE workstations), Intel (as the second largest contributor to Linux) and other influential players like Valve, the open PC cannot be bought out by Microsoft.
It's not just like the XBox 360 is not a PC.
What is the definition of a PC then?
Yes it does. First off, you have to jump through many hoops to get a UEFI key.
There is no such thing as a UEFI key.
Secondly, since apparently computer makers have to write their own code to the UEFI spec, they are also responsible for checking that it works with different operating systems.
This is a flaw in Samsung's implementation of UEFI, if they made a mistake in their BIOS code it would be the same.
And I do blame Microsoft because they are the ones who are using their dominant market share to ensure the majority of new computers carry this abomination.
The BIOS is long obsolete, Linux, BSD and OSX have all supported UEFI for a long time, Microsoft is the one that has been languishing in obsolescence and now they have finally caught up. The various directors of the UEFI forum (AMD, American Megatrends, Apple, Dell, HP, IBM, Insyde Software, Intel, Lenovo, Microsoft, and Phoenix Technologies) have been shipping UEFI products for many years.
Anarchy is not liberty.
And allowing people to do whatever they like with sourcecode you post is not anarchy.
Yer, that's why the first key in any EFI system is not Microsoft's and other OS builders are not having to go to Microsoft to get their keys signed. Oh wait........
Oh wait what? You mean oh wait, you're wrong. Microsoft's key isn't in my EFI system or my Mac which is also an EFI system. Moreover Microsoft doesn't sign any keys so you're wrong again, they aren't a signing authority, Verisign signs keys and can sign your bootloader with Microsoft's key if you want, or you could use your own key and install it on your system or you could turn SecureBoot off.
EUFI and Secure Boot both inherently favor large dominant OS players over minority players.
Wrong, EUFI isn't a thing, UEFI doesn't inherently favor anybody in any way and Secure Boot is a feature that you can use if your bootloader is signed or you want to sign it since you just install the key, alternatively you can turn it off if you don't want it and operate just as you always have on other (U)EFI systems - like Macs - and older BIOS systems.
Ah, yes, eloquently stated. And, you know, it's totally okay to do that but let's assume that you've "fucked" the license and governance and your code is great and popular. Now, what stops a company from taking your code and making massive changes to it and shipping that code for mad moneys?
Nothing, who gives a fuck if they do that? If i release code i don't care what people do with it. If i did care i would release it under a specific license or not release it at all.
What forces them to give back their changes that might make that code better?
Why should you be forcing anyone to do anything?
What did you and the community gain by contributing to that company's revenue?
Nothing, why do you have to gain something out of it? If some company uses Linux in a for-profit product but doesn't make any changes and thus doesn't contribute anything back then you're in no different situation with the GPL or other copyleft licenses either.
Well, what if that company then claimed that your code was an unlicensed version of their code and moved to have it remove?
It's going to be pretty obvious if you post it to github - even if you copyright or license it some company could still do the same thing.
OK, why do I have to go to Microsoft to get a signing key to run a particular Linux kernel?
You don't, if you think you do then you obviously have absolutely no idea what you're doing.
Apple doesn't distribute their OS to any other OEMs
So? They produce PCs and are an OS vendor with a significant - and extremely profitable - stake in the market.
and neither HP nor IBM's OSes matter in the context that Microsoft has heavily pushed secure boot in.
Workstations don't matter? You actually believe Linux is so crappy that HP would just drop RHEL and SUSE if Microsoft asked them to? You have some conspiracy theory that Microsoft controls all of these companies and that they could force them to produce only Windows 8 SecureBoot mandatory products? If there is a decline in the PC market it's the consumer market that is going down, in favor of Linux and iOS devices - but even many of the OEMs that do produce Windows machines also produce Linux ones (of course nowhere near as many as the development, testing and support costs aren't worth it for the lack of popularity).
Which begs the question - how does Apple boot Windows 8? Their UEFI doesn't support secure boot as OS X doesn't support it...
Why does it beg that question? Windows 8 doesn't require UEFI or SecureBoot, there's your answer.
Trying their best to sabotage free software.
I think you are referring to Microsoft. UEFI Secure Boot is their baby.
UEFI has nothing to do with Microsoft, even Secure Boot isn't a Microsoft thing and this story doesn't have anything to do with Secure Boot anyway...nice attempt to drag this topic into another M$ Windoze bash-fest though.
Other than running the risk of losing volume discounts on Windows licenses.
Bullshit, plenty of big name OEMs make Linux laptops, moreover not all OEMs get volume license discounts and further still you don't need to be a Windows licensee to make Linux laptops (a quick google search will show you many that don't).
So what should one someone who owns a device do when he wants to use the device as a tool but discovers that a particular application is not available for his device because the device's monopoly gatekeeper rejected the concept?
Use a different tool. Sure an iPad is a great device for many things, but developing applications isn't one of them, you can't - for example - run XCode on it.
Agreed. But all the evidence so far suggests there are no major hardware makers who see Linux on the desktop as a viable platform.
Perhaps it isn't, I mean with major missteps like Windows Me and Vista, Linux still failed to get traction in the consumer market, yet Android dominates the ARM personal computing space.
So if a minor maker does, there's a good chance they'd need to have motherboards customised, pushing prices up significantly.
Such is the way with a niche market, supply and demand. These days people seem to prefer devices with a unification of hardware and software rather than separating them. Smart phones, tablets, gaming consoles and pre-build/pre-configured PCs/Macs are hugely popular because most people use them as a tool and don't want to be tweaking them and configuring them, not to mention these days they are cheap enough and last long enough that 'upgrading' an old PC is less and less necessary.
I take it you simply don't understand SecureBoot, if they revoke the certificate they remove the ability to boot Windows...duh.
Not yet - wait until Windows 9..
Then every motherboard producer that want a MS certification HAS to implement secure boot.
Every motherboard manufacturer who wants Windows certification for Windows 8 already needs to do that.
And it would not surprise me a bit if by then they want the same restrictions on X86 as they managed to push on ARM devices.
Even if they could do that there is plenty of non-certified hardware and nothing stopping manufacturers from building Linux desktops just like so many do with Android devices - even most Microsoft partners make and sell Android devices.
Well of course you're going to have a hard time with that, success for an operating system requires partnership with hardware vendors or hardware vendors that at least see it as a viable solution. On the desktop, Microsoft has a lot of hardware partners for Windows and Apple simply makes the hardware, in the server market vendors most often choose Linux for their offerings and on mobile Google partnered with various device manufacturers for Android and that's snowballed into many non-partners using it in their products. Sure just about any computing device can run Linux, but without support from hardware partners drivers for all the hardware won't get written for Linux.
There's no reason desktop computer hardware makers - especially non-Microsoft partners - couldn't push Linux if they saw it as viable, just like they do for Android on mobile.