"few U.S. courts will assert that his websites are truly libelous, either, and it's still difficult to prove any real 'damages' are done by it"
This makes me wonder what exactly the content is, if it's not truly libelous and there is no real damage being done is there really a problem? Seems more like a 'he's written something i don't like' situation, can't really tell without know what the content is though.
The Android kernel is a derivative work of the Linux kernel, so it's GPL and Google can't prevent anyone from forking it.
So what they do instead is they use the OHA contract to threaten OEMs (Acer is an example) and make sure they don't use forks. The closed development process means unless you are part of the OHA you can't get access to the latest version until it is shipping so you can't really compete with other manufacturers.
I disagree. I have spoken to many people who decry the "walled garden" model of mobile OSes.
Well the option to avoid it is there, a rooted Android device or jailbroken iPhone...so what percentage of smartphones are rooted Android devices or jailbroken iPhones? I'd say it's probably a tiny percentage.
When they say 'real openness' my understanding is they are referring to the development process, but to be clear i don't know if that is what is provided by Ubuntu Phone. What that means is you don't actually get the code for the latest Android version until sometime after it is shipping unless you are part of the OHA because code in development is closed to the public, so if you were to make an Android phone you can't really get moving until OHA members are already shipping their devices.
To do it on iOS devices you need a bootloader exploit (of which the last was found in a version well over 2 years old, you can't do it on modern devices) because - like the Surface - the bootloader is locked down to prevent installing alternative operating systems.
People have been running Linux on iDevices for a couple of years now, as anyone with enough sense to type "Linux on iPad" into the Google search box can easily see.
Actually you require a firmware that has a security hole for a bootrom exploit, just like you would need to do it with the surface.
We don't think simply because its a ARM instead of X86 changes my mind in the slightest. Its still an abuse of its desktop monopoly.
If ARM computing devices are included as part of the desktop market than Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly, if they had any kind of market power then Windows RT and Windows Phone wouldn't have a combined market share in the low single-digit range, even Windows 8 is facing slower growth numbers than Vista. Is the 'growth' of those products what you expect from a powerful monopoly? I don't think so.
Short of some bogus barrier, there is no such thing.
Well does this have a bogus barrier or not?
The idea that it's "not designed for" is just clueless nonsense.
He said it was 'designed to never run linux', to which you responded that such a thing doesn't exist unless it has some sort of 'bogus barrier', which it does. Your whole post is contradicting itself, the only clueless thing here is you.
It's MY hardware. Once I buy it it becomes MY personal property to use any way I see fit.
Go for it, nobody is stopping you, do whatever you want. His post is perfectly rational though, it's far more valuable for everyone to make Linux a better operating system on the abundance of devices specifically designed for it than it is to take a niche device with no market presence for which it wasn't designed and waste time trying to shoe-horn Linux onto it.
And then watch prices rise and choice narrowed as the homebuild market is eventually extinguished due to uefi non-compliance. It's what monopolies do.
haha, yeah i really see Microsoft being so successful that they destroy both Apple and Google as well as everyone else in the general purpose computing space. Windows 8 has had less market penetration since its release than any Windows release in recent memory has in that timeframe yet you're still going to parade paranoid delusions that big bad Microsoft controls the computing industry and they will kill off everything else. Windows 8 is failing, Windows RT has a virtually immeasurable market share and the only battle Windows Phone is winning is against its long aborted and dead predecessor Windows Mobile, anyone harping on about the relentless domination of computing by Microsoft clearly has far too much invested in Microsoft hate to see the obvious reality that Microsoft is not an overarching force in the industry.
You are right about that. But the main point is still there. Why should there be a difference between x86 hardware and ARM hardware? Both are general purpose computers, and pointing to the CPU architecture is not a reason for locking down the hardware to only run a specific OS.
In that case the sheer number of iOS and Android devices means that Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly so they can do - like Apple - whatever they want with their products.
The OS... yes they do. But they also abused that position and got caught. Want to put BeOS on a PC, OEM? Pay MS the "Windows fee" anyway. Want to put Linux on a PC (OEM again)? Pay up.
But you don't have to, just buy a non-Windows PC or build your own. Yes non-Windows PCs from OEMs are less common, but basic economics explains the reason for that. Often they are also more expensive...but hang on isn't it a 'free' OS? Well yes - even in the context of 'free' being the cost to purchase - however the free software model is built upon either paying for support or doing your own development, when a major OEM has issues with getting the free OS running properly on their machines they need to pay for support or employ developers, couple that with low volume of sales and you see the net effect that the product is more expensive. But it shouldn't matter anyway, especially given that if you look at Apple you see that people are indeed willing to pay a premium for a better quality product (even if that is sometimes a perceived better quality). If Linux is indeed superior it should be able to gain marketshare even if it were to cost more than Windows, especially given how terrible Windows is claimed to be and how much better the free software model is claimed to be. It's time to stop making excuses and start making a better product.
And how do you propose they avoid having a monopoly in their own product?
The reason this is an abuse is quite simple. They are requiring ARM based tablets that have Windows 8 certification (take whatever you want from the intended meaning of that phrase) to require a non-user accessible key to certify or "sign" binaries on the ARM platform.
They don't have a monopoly on the ARM platform - they don't even have measurable marketshare in that market - and there is not even any reason for anyone to make a Windows RT tablet, much less for anyone to buy one and whether or not you run the desktop version of Windows has no impact on that whatsoever. That's the very reason this is not an abuse of monopoly power. You don't seem to understand anti-trust, an abuse of monopoly power hinges on one company having the only player in the game which allows them to dictate the terms of the market, Windows RT is not the only player in the game in fact it isn't really in the game at all.
No Microsoft is leveraging their monopoly in the OS market(where they have considerably more than 1%, it's a lot closer to 91% than to 1%).
How? Unless what they are doing somehow converts people to using their surface products there is no effect, there is no elimination of consumer choice so your assertion that there is an abuse of monopoly power makes no sense.
By preventing booting another OS or dualbooting they are doing exactly the same thing as they were doing(and probably still doing) with PC's.
But that is only on one device, which has virtually no market presence and there is certainly no requirement that devices be able to dual boot or boot other OSes.
They're trying to sell their tablet by using the fact that it has windows as a selling point and actively preventing others from showing that the tablet (maybe) works better with Android, Linux, OS X or whatever.
So? What requirement is there for them to allow that? None. Your statement clearly demonstrates that you don't actually understand the concept of anti-trust.
Hence they are abusing their dominant market share in the OS market to gain market shares elsewhere which is illegal, at least in the EU.
That doesn't follow. And no, what they are doing is not illegal in any place in the world, you just don't understand the law.
OK... But how long before the FTC starts investigating Microsoft for abuse of monopoly powers to conduct the anticompetitive practice, product tying, with regards to implementing measures to prevent competitors from producing OSes compatible with their platform?
They wouldn't do it at all because there is no anti-trust issue here. The requirement for secureboot to be able to be turned off on Windows 8 systems exists to allow competition and prevent anti-trust issues. As far as surface is concerned it has no monopoly position so is irrelevant.
How has your choice been reduced? The microsoft surface pro doesn't even exist yet, and even when it does come to market it will not replace anything so nothing has been lost, choice has not been reduced.
Most pre-Win8 full screen applications don't make sense to run windowed. The one that's usually brought up by Metro proponents as an example is games.
Ok...how often do I need to work on a Word document while I'm also killing pixels in Call of Duty? The attention required to not die in CoD means that I can't do anything else anyway, so running any less than full screen doesn't make sense.
Perfect example of a strawman argument.
Image and Fax Viewer, OTOH, doesn't make any sense at all to be full screen, unless you're using it to display a slideshow, but it's a Metro app in Win8.
And you can run it in side-by-side if you want, or on another monitor, or use a desktop application instead.
What compelling reason is there for the Metro interface on a Desktop PC?
Because it's on all their other consumer platforms, and you shouldn't have to have a Windows RT device to run Windows RT apps when the desktop version of Windows is perfectly capable of it.
My apologies, the '...apparently' probably wasn't a good signal of sarcasm. I totally agree with you, this notion of rights being taken away is ridiculous.
How are new users of Windows 8 expected to discover that this tutorial exists before they end up accidentally opening weather and not knowing how to make it go away?
The initial tutorial comes up when you first log in and shows you the basics, that's all you need to get going, people don't need to be babied through this. It's no different to working on iOS, hitting the home button to go to the start screen, double-tapping then hold+press to close running apps...it's not particularly intuitive but it doesn't matter.
That 'how are people going to cope' point of view adequately demonstrates that you weren't using computers back around the time Windows 95 was launched.
Yes it does. It's the 'metro' interface which has exactly ONE app on screen at any one time (apparently random times too!).
Within the 'metro' UI that is partially true (there is some support for side-by-side apps), but that is not the only UI on Windows 8, as such his assertions are demonstrably false, they didn't remove windowing, they didn't require all programs to be full screen and they didn't remove the ability to run multiple programs at once, that is all still there.
When people say, it's a good app, I use the Desktop...they're saying that Win8 isn't good and Win7, which is what the Desktop basically is, is what they prefer to use.
So you are under the impression that the only thing different between Windows 8 and Windows 7 is the 'metro' UI, in that case your post makes more sense, still wrong though.
Slashdot Mirror
"few U.S. courts will assert that his websites are truly libelous, either, and it's still difficult to prove any real 'damages' are done by it"
This makes me wonder what exactly the content is, if it's not truly libelous and there is no real damage being done is there really a problem? Seems more like a 'he's written something i don't like' situation, can't really tell without know what the content is though.
The Android kernel is a derivative work of the Linux kernel, so it's GPL and Google can't prevent anyone from forking it.
So what they do instead is they use the OHA contract to threaten OEMs (Acer is an example) and make sure they don't use forks. The closed development process means unless you are part of the OHA you can't get access to the latest version until it is shipping so you can't really compete with other manufacturers.
I disagree. I have spoken to many people who decry the "walled garden" model of mobile OSes.
Well the option to avoid it is there, a rooted Android device or jailbroken iPhone...so what percentage of smartphones are rooted Android devices or jailbroken iPhones? I'd say it's probably a tiny percentage.
When they say 'real openness' my understanding is they are referring to the development process, but to be clear i don't know if that is what is provided by Ubuntu Phone. What that means is you don't actually get the code for the latest Android version until sometime after it is shipping unless you are part of the OHA because code in development is closed to the public, so if you were to make an Android phone you can't really get moving until OHA members are already shipping their devices.
To do it on iOS devices you need a bootloader exploit (of which the last was found in a version well over 2 years old, you can't do it on modern devices) because - like the Surface - the bootloader is locked down to prevent installing alternative operating systems.
Non-story.
People have been running Linux on iDevices for a couple of years now, as anyone with enough sense to type "Linux on iPad" into the Google search box can easily see.
Actually you require a firmware that has a security hole for a bootrom exploit, just like you would need to do it with the surface.
We don't think simply because its a ARM instead of X86 changes my mind in the slightest. Its still an abuse of its desktop monopoly.
If ARM computing devices are included as part of the desktop market than Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly, if they had any kind of market power then Windows RT and Windows Phone wouldn't have a combined market share in the low single-digit range, even Windows 8 is facing slower growth numbers than Vista. Is the 'growth' of those products what you expect from a powerful monopoly? I don't think so.
Short of some bogus barrier, there is no such thing.
Well does this have a bogus barrier or not?
The idea that it's "not designed for" is just clueless nonsense.
He said it was 'designed to never run linux', to which you responded that such a thing doesn't exist unless it has some sort of 'bogus barrier', which it does. Your whole post is contradicting itself, the only clueless thing here is you.
It's MY hardware. Once I buy it it becomes MY personal property to use any way I see fit.
Go for it, nobody is stopping you, do whatever you want. His post is perfectly rational though, it's far more valuable for everyone to make Linux a better operating system on the abundance of devices specifically designed for it than it is to take a niche device with no market presence for which it wasn't designed and waste time trying to shoe-horn Linux onto it.
And then watch prices rise and choice narrowed as the homebuild market is eventually extinguished due to uefi non-compliance. It's what monopolies do.
haha, yeah i really see Microsoft being so successful that they destroy both Apple and Google as well as everyone else in the general purpose computing space. Windows 8 has had less market penetration since its release than any Windows release in recent memory has in that timeframe yet you're still going to parade paranoid delusions that big bad Microsoft controls the computing industry and they will kill off everything else. Windows 8 is failing, Windows RT has a virtually immeasurable market share and the only battle Windows Phone is winning is against its long aborted and dead predecessor Windows Mobile, anyone harping on about the relentless domination of computing by Microsoft clearly has far too much invested in Microsoft hate to see the obvious reality that Microsoft is not an overarching force in the industry.
You are right about that. But the main point is still there. Why should there be a difference between x86 hardware and ARM hardware? Both are general purpose computers, and pointing to the CPU architecture is not a reason for locking down the hardware to only run a specific OS.
In that case the sheer number of iOS and Android devices means that Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly so they can do - like Apple - whatever they want with their products.
It's merely enough to demonstate that Microsoft is using its monopoly status in desktop and/or office apps to compete unfairly in another market.
Which they aren't doing, which is why there's no investigation.
The OS... yes they do. But they also abused that position and got caught. Want to put BeOS on a PC, OEM? Pay MS the "Windows fee" anyway. Want to put Linux on a PC (OEM again)? Pay up.
But you don't have to, just buy a non-Windows PC or build your own. Yes non-Windows PCs from OEMs are less common, but basic economics explains the reason for that. Often they are also more expensive...but hang on isn't it a 'free' OS? Well yes - even in the context of 'free' being the cost to purchase - however the free software model is built upon either paying for support or doing your own development, when a major OEM has issues with getting the free OS running properly on their machines they need to pay for support or employ developers, couple that with low volume of sales and you see the net effect that the product is more expensive.
But it shouldn't matter anyway, especially given that if you look at Apple you see that people are indeed willing to pay a premium for a better quality product (even if that is sometimes a perceived better quality). If Linux is indeed superior it should be able to gain marketshare even if it were to cost more than Windows, especially given how terrible Windows is claimed to be and how much better the free software model is claimed to be. It's time to stop making excuses and start making a better product.
It's in the sentence you quote. Windows.
And how do you propose they avoid having a monopoly in their own product?
The reason this is an abuse is quite simple. They are requiring ARM based tablets that have Windows 8 certification (take whatever you want from the intended meaning of that phrase) to require a non-user accessible key to certify or "sign" binaries on the ARM platform.
They don't have a monopoly on the ARM platform - they don't even have measurable marketshare in that market - and there is not even any reason for anyone to make a Windows RT tablet, much less for anyone to buy one and whether or not you run the desktop version of Windows has no impact on that whatsoever. That's the very reason this is not an abuse of monopoly power. You don't seem to understand anti-trust, an abuse of monopoly power hinges on one company having the only player in the game which allows them to dictate the terms of the market, Windows RT is not the only player in the game in fact it isn't really in the game at all.
No Microsoft is leveraging their monopoly in the OS market(where they have considerably more than 1%, it's a lot closer to 91% than to 1%).
How? Unless what they are doing somehow converts people to using their surface products there is no effect, there is no elimination of consumer choice so your assertion that there is an abuse of monopoly power makes no sense.
By preventing booting another OS or dualbooting they are doing exactly the same thing as they were doing(and probably still doing) with PC's.
But that is only on one device, which has virtually no market presence and there is certainly no requirement that devices be able to dual boot or boot other OSes.
They're trying to sell their tablet by using the fact that it has windows as a selling point and actively preventing others from showing that the tablet (maybe) works better with Android, Linux, OS X or whatever.
So? What requirement is there for them to allow that? None. Your statement clearly demonstrates that you don't actually understand the concept of anti-trust.
Hence they are abusing their dominant market share in the OS market to gain market shares elsewhere which is illegal, at least in the EU.
That doesn't follow. And no, what they are doing is not illegal in any place in the world, you just don't understand the law.
OK... But how long before the FTC starts investigating Microsoft for abuse of monopoly powers to conduct the anticompetitive practice, product tying, with regards to implementing measures to prevent competitors from producing OSes compatible with their platform?
They wouldn't do it at all because there is no anti-trust issue here. The requirement for secureboot to be able to be turned off on Windows 8 systems exists to allow competition and prevent anti-trust issues. As far as surface is concerned it has no monopoly position so is irrelevant.
Yours. Because your choice has been reduced.
How has your choice been reduced? The microsoft surface pro doesn't even exist yet, and even when it does come to market it will not replace anything so nothing has been lost, choice has not been reduced.
Most pre-Win8 full screen applications don't make sense to run windowed. The one that's usually brought up by Metro proponents as an example is games.
Ok...how often do I need to work on a Word document while I'm also killing pixels in Call of Duty? The attention required to not die in CoD means that I can't do anything else anyway, so running any less than full screen doesn't make sense.
Perfect example of a strawman argument.
Image and Fax Viewer, OTOH, doesn't make any sense at all to be full screen, unless you're using it to display a slideshow, but it's a Metro app in Win8.
And you can run it in side-by-side if you want, or on another monitor, or use a desktop application instead.
What compelling reason is there for the Metro interface on a Desktop PC?
Because it's on all their other consumer platforms, and you shouldn't have to have a Windows RT device to run Windows RT apps when the desktop version of Windows is perfectly capable of it.
Unless the application your using is a windows rt app then it has those exact attributes.
How is that different from any fullscreen only application?
My apologies, the '...apparently' probably wasn't a good signal of sarcasm. I totally agree with you, this notion of rights being taken away is ridiculous.
How are new users of Windows 8 expected to discover that this tutorial exists before they end up accidentally opening weather and not knowing how to make it go away?
The initial tutorial comes up when you first log in and shows you the basics, that's all you need to get going, people don't need to be babied through this. It's no different to working on iOS, hitting the home button to go to the start screen, double-tapping then hold+press to close running apps...it's not particularly intuitive but it doesn't matter.
That 'how are people going to cope' point of view adequately demonstrates that you weren't using computers back around the time Windows 95 was launched.
Yes it does. It's the 'metro' interface which has exactly ONE app on screen at any one time (apparently random times too!).
Within the 'metro' UI that is partially true (there is some support for side-by-side apps), but that is not the only UI on Windows 8, as such his assertions are demonstrably false, they didn't remove windowing, they didn't require all programs to be full screen and they didn't remove the ability to run multiple programs at once, that is all still there.
When people say, it's a good app, I use the Desktop...they're saying that Win8 isn't good and Win7, which is what the Desktop basically is, is what they prefer to use.
So you are under the impression that the only thing different between Windows 8 and Windows 7 is the 'metro' UI, in that case your post makes more sense, still wrong though.
So removing windowing, and requiring all programs to be full screen, so only able to run one program at a time, is an improvement to you?
You seem to be confused between Windows RT and Windows 8, the latter (which is what we are talking about) does not have the attributes you describe.