You're partly right, but remember that they also didn't have a monopoly on browsers at the time. Yet it was browsers they got sued over. What got them into trouble was leveraging their existing monopoly in Intel-compatible PCs to limit the market in browsers.
Which they aren't, Microsoft used it's monopoly product (x86 Windows) as a vehicle for getting IE to users, the end user was given IE whether they wanted it or not.
And they could easily get into similar trouble with ARM devices, if it can be shown that they are tied to the PC OS in any way.
Can you give an example of such a situation? I can't think of one.
I'm simply saying that your argument for why they can't is flawed.
The argument for why they can't is completely valid unless there is some way the existing sales of x86 Windows also provides Windows RT devices along with it in such a way that other vendors can't compete.
Someone has explained in a previous Slashdot story on the subject that this doesn't violate GPLv3 provisions so long as UEFI provides the ability to turn Secure Boot off, and thereby run any code you wish on it.
Which is something that is mandated in the windows certification, probably for exactly that reason.
rips Microsoft a "new one" in a class action and/or anti-trust suit
How could such a thing happen? The very nature of UEFI SecureBoot means you need a key and if you want a key you have to pay Verisign for it and if you don't want SecureBoot at all you just turn it off.
"No thank you" to an offer to pay $99 to allow me to configure hardware and firmware that I have already paid for.
I know which PCs I will not be purchasing.
Well you don't seem to understand the issue, if you want to run a signed bootloader you need a key, you have to pay $99 to Verisign for that. Alternatively you turn secureboot off and continue as normal.
An interesting difference is that Microsoft makes bootlocking a requirement for other vendors to get their hardware certified for Windows.
So? There's no law against that. No one has to make ARM Windows tablets, they have no market share and they aren't tied to MS's monopoly product x86 Windows.
I guess Microsoft's approach could be viewed as a form of "exclusive dealing" as defined by Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_dealing [wikipedia.org]), because it excludes other operating systems from being used with Windows-certified tablets.
Wrong, because it doesn't stop the makers of those tablets from using any other OS, in fact they could use Android on the exact same product! They just can't sell that product as a Windows-certified device.
The problem is, there is no way to prove to the machine that you are its owner. Until there will be a mandated big red physical switch that unlocks the key installation procedure while the box is running (everything else is hopelessly obfuscated), the device is effectively tivo-ized or worse.
It's all through UEFI setup, where you can setup custom mode or turn Secureboot off.
Microsoft requires that UEFI machines hold only one key. If they revoke one key, well, that is the only one...
Are you trolling or you just don't know anything about this? In no way have they required that UEFI machines hold only one key, that assertion is just false.
Why? Windows RT has no marketshare, in fact Windows has virtually no presence on the ARM platform at all, anti-trust requires a monopoly position which MS does not have on ARM nor is their ARM version of Windows tied to their x86 version so there is no leverage of monopoly position either.
From everything I've read, Windows 8 won't run unless SecureBoot is on. That means to swap OSes, the user would have to boot into the BIOS every time he wanted to change OSes. That's just shitty.
Well again, that's wrong. Do you actually believe they would expect you to discard all existing non-UEFI machines and have no upgrade path? They still support 32bit x86 but you think they would abandon traditional BIOS?
Anyway: Windows 8 will also enter the market in a time when the industry is shifting to the Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI) for BIOS on all new client systems. We will continue to support the legacy BIOS interface http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/09/20/reengineering-the-windows-boot-experience.aspx
Why not graduate from consoles and move into PC gaming?
Because not everyone wants to be on the forums on launch day questioning why their drivers are crashing when they adjust their settings to get a balance between performance and visual quality. Look at the myriad of posts on the forums for AAA titles complaining of crashes with different hardware combinations and hurried releases of drivers to try and fix problems.
It probably won't affect me, but what of the users who want to run Windows Dual Boot on a Linux or Apple box?
How will that affect them? They don't have to run Windows in a secureboot environment, but they can if they want to, I know I won't be as I will be dual booting on my Mac.
Sure it is. The system will actively block you from running a non-MS signed OS unless you disable secure booting (which is on by default.)
No, it obviously isn't, it's a UEFI standard feature that you can either turn it off or install your own key. The platform is absolutely no more closed than it ever has been.
How many users do you think are going to know how to disable secure booting?
If they are installing Linux i don't think they are going to find it overly difficult to change one documented BIOS option, very simple, otherwise there is no reason to disable it.
How many places can OEMs find to put that option?
Well it's mandatory that the option be available, it's quite well documented.
every non-Apple x86 computer sold will have W8 preinstalled, along with secure boot.
And that stops you from running Linux on it how? I don't think you know what secureboot is and just see it as a thing that locks out non-Windows OSes. If you have a key and a signed linux bootloader you install that key using secureboot custom mode, if not then you can't use secureboot and you just turn it off, very simple, not a hard concept to grasp.
No it doesn't, if you bothered to read the passage i was replying to (which i even quoted right there), you would see he doesn't want trusted computing.
End-users want to put something else on the computer. Given the UEFI, they can't
Why not? There's nothing stopping them, in fact MS's certification mandates that you MUST be able to turn secureboot off to do exactly that, not sure whether you're just trying to spread FUD or just haven't actually read anything about this.
Enough end users complain to get a lawyer interested... but that little EULA says they can't.
No it doesn't, because such an issue - if it existed, which it doesn't - wouldn't be related to Windows 8 anyway, it would be related to the hardware and the hardware manufacturer's adoption of MS's certification, whether Windows 8 is on there or not would make no difference.
Slashdot Mirror
You're partly right, but remember that they also didn't have a monopoly on browsers at the time. Yet it was browsers they got sued over. What got them into trouble was leveraging their existing monopoly in Intel-compatible PCs to limit the market in browsers.
Which they aren't, Microsoft used it's monopoly product (x86 Windows) as a vehicle for getting IE to users, the end user was given IE whether they wanted it or not.
And they could easily get into similar trouble with ARM devices, if it can be shown that they are tied to the PC OS in any way.
Can you give an example of such a situation? I can't think of one.
I'm simply saying that your argument for why they can't is flawed.
The argument for why they can't is completely valid unless there is some way the existing sales of x86 Windows also provides Windows RT devices along with it in such a way that other vendors can't compete.
I (should have) written:
``It's ludicrous that one could purchase a _general purpose computer_ system and then not be allowed to install arbitrary software on it.''
You should have written:
``It would be ludicrous if one could purchase a _general purpose computer_ system and then not be allowed to install arbitrary software on it.''
Someone has explained in a previous Slashdot story on the subject that this doesn't violate GPLv3 provisions so long as UEFI provides the ability to turn Secure Boot off, and thereby run any code you wish on it.
Which is something that is mandated in the windows certification, probably for exactly that reason.
rips Microsoft a "new one" in a class action and/or anti-trust suit
How could such a thing happen? The very nature of UEFI SecureBoot means you need a key and if you want a key you have to pay Verisign for it and if you don't want SecureBoot at all you just turn it off.
Microsoft has been found guilty of having a monopoly by some courts. That changes the rules.
No it doesn't.
It is not a level playing field, companies with monopolies have stricter requirements that they must follow.
Really? Then what are these requirements?
"No thank you" to an offer to pay $99 to allow me to configure hardware and firmware that I have already paid for. I know which PCs I will not be purchasing.
Well you don't seem to understand the issue, if you want to run a signed bootloader you need a key, you have to pay $99 to Verisign for that. Alternatively you turn secureboot off and continue as normal.
And there's nothing preventing them from extending this to other platforms like they're mandating it on ARM. You try to keep up.
errr...of course there is, it's called anti-trust law. You try to keep up.
An interesting difference is that Microsoft makes bootlocking a requirement for other vendors to get their hardware certified for Windows.
So? There's no law against that. No one has to make ARM Windows tablets, they have no market share and they aren't tied to MS's monopoly product x86 Windows.
I guess Microsoft's approach could be viewed as a form of "exclusive dealing" as defined by Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_dealing [wikipedia.org]), because it excludes other operating systems from being used with Windows-certified tablets.
Wrong, because it doesn't stop the makers of those tablets from using any other OS, in fact they could use Android on the exact same product! They just can't sell that product as a Windows-certified device.
The problem is, there is no way to prove to the machine that you are its owner. Until there will be a mandated big red physical switch that unlocks the key installation procedure while the box is running (everything else is hopelessly obfuscated), the device is effectively tivo-ized or worse.
It's all through UEFI setup, where you can setup custom mode or turn Secureboot off.
Microsoft requires that UEFI machines hold only one key. If they revoke one key, well, that is the only one...
Are you trolling or you just don't know anything about this? In no way have they required that UEFI machines hold only one key, that assertion is just false.
Now that would be grounds for antitrust.
Why? Windows RT has no marketshare, in fact Windows has virtually no presence on the ARM platform at all, anti-trust requires a monopoly position which MS does not have on ARM nor is their ARM version of Windows tied to their x86 version so there is no leverage of monopoly position either.
Microsoft cares about loyalty to their own products. They will never exclude them, and will always give them an advantage.
Not really, perfect example is Photosynth wrt Windows Phone, or on{x} on Android.
until Linux is eating into their desktop business and then see them launch the Patent ICBMs. Canonical better buy some kinetic kill vehicles...
Haha, it's been a while since i've seen a 'Year of the Linux Desktop is coming!' advocate :)
From everything I've read, Windows 8 won't run unless SecureBoot is on. That means to swap OSes, the user would have to boot into the BIOS every time he wanted to change OSes. That's just shitty.
Well again, that's wrong. Do you actually believe they would expect you to discard all existing non-UEFI machines and have no upgrade path? They still support 32bit x86 but you think they would abandon traditional BIOS?
Anyway:
Windows 8 will also enter the market in a time when the industry is shifting to the Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI) for BIOS on all new client systems. We will continue to support the legacy BIOS interface
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/09/20/reengineering-the-windows-boot-experience.aspx
How about you work on a next gen console, and stop adding useless crap to your tired console from 2005?
Yeah stop supporting your products dammit!
So it's coming up on IOS and Windows Phones? I expected Windows Phones but IOS over Android?
Watch the presentation, he said Windows Phone, iOS and Android.
Why not graduate from consoles and move into PC gaming?
Because not everyone wants to be on the forums on launch day questioning why their drivers are crashing when they adjust their settings to get a balance between performance and visual quality. Look at the myriad of posts on the forums for AAA titles complaining of crashes with different hardware combinations and hurried releases of drivers to try and fix problems.
It probably won't affect me, but what of the users who want to run Windows Dual Boot on a Linux or Apple box?
How will that affect them? They don't have to run Windows in a secureboot environment, but they can if they want to, I know I won't be as I will be dual booting on my Mac.
How do you know those are GPL advocates?
He doesn't, that seems to be the question he's asking: ... is not a serious GPL advocate?
so the avg slashdot commenter
Sure it is. The system will actively block you from running a non-MS signed OS unless you disable secure booting (which is on by default.)
No, it obviously isn't, it's a UEFI standard feature that you can either turn it off or install your own key. The platform is absolutely no more closed than it ever has been.
How many users do you think are going to know how to disable secure booting?
If they are installing Linux i don't think they are going to find it overly difficult to change one documented BIOS option, very simple, otherwise there is no reason to disable it.
How many places can OEMs find to put that option?
Well it's mandatory that the option be available, it's quite well documented.
Except for the fact that every non-Apple x86 computer sold has Windows preinstalled, and when W8 comes out
No that is not correct.
every non-Apple x86 computer sold will have W8 preinstalled, along with secure boot.
And that stops you from running Linux on it how? I don't think you know what secureboot is and just see it as a thing that locks out non-Windows OSes. If you have a key and a signed linux bootloader you install that key using secureboot custom mode, if not then you can't use secureboot and you just turn it off, very simple, not a hard concept to grasp.
My solution works for everyone.
No it doesn't, if you bothered to read the passage i was replying to (which i even quoted right there), you would see he doesn't want trusted computing.
Generally drivers are written for a specific OS, you aren't going to use Windows drivers in a Linux OS for example.
End-users want to put something else on the computer. Given the UEFI, they can't
Why not? There's nothing stopping them, in fact MS's certification mandates that you MUST be able to turn secureboot off to do exactly that, not sure whether you're just trying to spread FUD or just haven't actually read anything about this.
Enough end users complain to get a lawyer interested... but that little EULA says they can't.
No it doesn't, because such an issue - if it existed, which it doesn't - wouldn't be related to Windows 8 anyway, it would be related to the hardware and the hardware manufacturer's adoption of MS's certification, whether Windows 8 is on there or not would make no difference.
Exactly. I don't give a flying fuck about this trusted computing thingy. Where do I opt out?
It's in the UEFI settings, called SecureBoot, just turn it off.