... Except: Apple is doing it on their own hardware. Microsoft is requiring it from all hardware manufacturers that want a "Certified for Windows 8" sticker, which means pretty much all non-Apple hw makers. See the difference?
Apple gets someone to build hardware to spec for them, Microsoft puts out a spec and hardware manufacturers build hardware for them to that spec, not really much of a difference. Particularly when this clearly doesn't prevent hardware manufacturers from installing any other keys they like and it doesn't prevent users from turning the feature off if they don't want it (in fact it mandates that they must be able to do so).
Does it really matter why? The fact of the matter is that Macs ship with an open EFI and BIOS emulation, and can boot any operating system. That makes Macs a heck of a lot more open than PCs after this transition occurs.
How so? This isn't preventing any software from running on PCs, if you actually read what's going on you'll see the only difference is MS is providing a key for their OS such that you can use the standard UEFI feature called SecureBoot if you want to.
Of course for Windows 9, blocking non-Windows operating systems will become mandatory on all devices.
Nice FUD, unfortunately for your idiotic conspiracy theory we've seen MS get done for anti-trust violations before and obviously doing such a thing would most definitely be an anti-trust violation.
You don't get the 'slippery slope' thing, do you? Or are you one of those 'slippery slopes don't exist' bozos?
Firstly what's the precedent you believe is being set here and secondly if you believe there is a problem then how should UEFI be implemented? Or should UEFI not be allowed to exist?
The problem is Microsoft using their monopoly position to force vendors to ship computers with only Microsoft approved keys.
Rubbish, there is absolutely nothing to stop vendors from shipping computers without Microsoft approved keys, moreover they can even ship computers with Microsoft's key and any other keys.
What if new PCs start shipping with this turned on by default?
Linux distros/*BSD/Random-Recovery-Tool are going to have a hard time convincing people to first go to the BIOS and turn it off.
Why?
What if Microsoft Windows refuses to start unless it is turned on, so the choice is either run Windows OR (this is an exclusive OR) run Linux/*BSD/Whatever.
Well it's always an exclusive OR as to which one you run, you don't run them both at the same time. Anyway Windows 8 doesn't require secureboot so you can turn it off and still run it and any other OS you like.
In the end, the easiest thing is to pay a one-time fee of $99 to MS and have them sign a mini-bootloader that can start up grub. That doesn't sound like such a big deal to me.
Aaaaaand... this is precisely where the control of the keys lies. No, $99 is not a big deal for Redhat. Trusting M$ won't "Ooops, lol.. guess we borked your key sign just before you had that big competing product release. Gee, sorry. We'll get that fixed right away."
And the reason Red Had had to pay Microsoft is that the MS's proposal only permits one key
No, the reason they have to pay (it's actually not to Microsoft, it's to Verisign since they actually sign it) is because they want to sign it with Microsoft's key rather than having hardware manufacturers implement RedHat's own key.
so the hardware manufacturers can either permit RH's key or MS's key, not both.
Why? I haven't seen anything that suggests it is limited to one key.
They are paying MS to sign their OS with MS's key.
Actually, if you RTFA, you'll find they're paying Verisign.
How can this be legal and not an abuse of their monopoly power?
Probably because it's optional. Assuming you even buy such hardware you can either turn if off and not use secure boot and you're in the same position as you are now, or if really want to use secureboot on a linux install you can pay the fee (to Verisign) or use a distro that has already done that.
Metro isn't a GUI for the desktop. It's a GUI for a tablet or a phone.
I couldn't have said it better myself. The real problem is... why does Microsoft insist on forcing it onto desktop users?
Couldn't you just put a 'Show Desktop' shortcut in the Startup folder? Then the only reason to use the start screen is to launch programs that you don't have pinned to your taskbar, so it's basically just clicking an icon there rather than clicking through the start menu, no more difficult anyway.
The first is "Tivoization". Vendors should not hardwire checks to prevent "unapproved" software from being run. Makes no difference whether these checks are done in the software or hardware. Such a check really is software no matter that it's been hardwired in. With a scheme like that in place, you can't fix so much as a typo let alone a simple bug. Linus is apparently okay with Tivoization.
Of course, Linus cares about the Linux kernel code, not imposing any kinds of restrictions on the other software that you run or imposing any kind of restrictions on the hardware that you run the software on, just the Linux kernel code. He outlines it pretty clearly here, a choice quote: "-- I'm against "you cannot do xyz with the code.""
Vendors should not hardwire checks to prevent "unapproved" software from being run.
Actually you should not buy vendor-locked hardware. Obviously alternatives exist and in the case of TiVo you even have the FOSS software modifications they made so you can see what they do. But for example if you want a tablet to run whatever software you want you don't go and buy an iPad, you choose from one of the many open alternatives, you don't try and force everyone to do things your way. No-one is forcing you to buy a closed device, that's your choice.
Please. Sony is part and parcel of all the RIAA/MPAA lawsuits against people violating their copyright. Yet one of their public representatives is concerned about someone enforcing the terms of the GPL and seeks a way to "protect" people from them.
While I think Tim will probably continue to give his personal support the ToyBox project (note: Sony has *not* given its support to ToyBox -- that was reported incorrectly), it was clear that much of Tim's worries about Conservancy's enforcement efforts were based on rumors spread by a few people and those rumors weren't accurate. http://lwn.net/Articles/483016/
They wanted an alternative not because it was superior but because it would allow for a legal dodge to avoid licensing compliance.
Do you object to bionic as well? In any case here's the reasoning behind the project, no real problem with that.
I just wonder, why isn't it the development model for Microsoft anyway? As I recall, there was always the iteration between a "beta" Windows and the "stable" Windows. Win 3.11 (stable), then Win 95 (beta), Win Mil (beta), and then Windows 2000, Windows XP (stable), then Vista (beta), then Windows 7 (stable).
I think you've missed a couple and the general timeline is a bit off, they aren't really sequential like that, for desktop OSes there's: 3.x, 95, 98, ME, then this line was killed and merged with the NT line at XP.
The problem is actually exactly the opposite of what the original poster thinks. Microsoft is making too much of a break with the past with Windows 8
I disagree, all they've done is change the landing screen to be the start screen, which replaces the start menu. As far as the traditional desktop workflow is concerned the only thing that has changed is the application launcher (assuming you prefer the start menu to the taskbar). To look at it it might appear that things are drastically different, but when you actually use it it becomes apparent that not much has changed at all from the way you work in windows 7.
Difference is that if your local power/connectivity goes out you're probably stuffed either way. But if you're using a 'cloud' solution and the provider's power/connectivity - or something along the way - goes out then your local operation is still good to go but your hamstrung because your data is offsite, if your data was local you'd be fine.
No. And Windows 8 can't survive in any world. Metro is going to sink Windows.
Aside from "a train" and "a cellphone company" what is this Metro which you think is going to sink windows?
It's basically just the start screen instead of the start menu, i don't particularly like it and i'd prefer an option to default to the desktop with a start menu but i hardly see this as 'sinking Windows', we've seen plenty of fairly drastic changes over the years and all the set-in-their-ways geeks decry every change as the death knell of whatever product but it very rarely is.
Slashdot Mirror
You realise anti-trust is a competition issue and that in this situation they aren't doing anything anti-competitive at all?
... Except: Apple is doing it on their own hardware. Microsoft is requiring it from all hardware manufacturers that want a "Certified for Windows 8" sticker, which means pretty much all non-Apple hw makers. See the difference?
Apple gets someone to build hardware to spec for them, Microsoft puts out a spec and hardware manufacturers build hardware for them to that spec, not really much of a difference.
Particularly when this clearly doesn't prevent hardware manufacturers from installing any other keys they like and it doesn't prevent users from turning the feature off if they don't want it (in fact it mandates that they must be able to do so).
Does it really matter why? The fact of the matter is that Macs ship with an open EFI and BIOS emulation, and can boot any operating system. That makes Macs a heck of a lot more open than PCs after this transition occurs.
How so? This isn't preventing any software from running on PCs, if you actually read what's going on you'll see the only difference is MS is providing a key for their OS such that you can use the standard UEFI feature called SecureBoot if you want to.
Of course for Windows 9, blocking non-Windows operating systems will become mandatory on all devices.
Nice FUD, unfortunately for your idiotic conspiracy theory we've seen MS get done for anti-trust violations before and obviously doing such a thing would most definitely be an anti-trust violation.
You don't get the 'slippery slope' thing, do you? Or are you one of those 'slippery slopes don't exist' bozos?
Firstly what's the precedent you believe is being set here and secondly if you believe there is a problem then how should UEFI be implemented? Or should UEFI not be allowed to exist?
The problem is Microsoft using their monopoly position to force vendors to ship computers with only Microsoft approved keys.
Rubbish, there is absolutely nothing to stop vendors from shipping computers without Microsoft approved keys, moreover they can even ship computers with Microsoft's key and any other keys.
What if new PCs start shipping with this turned on by default?
Linux distros/*BSD/Random-Recovery-Tool are going to have a hard time convincing people to first go to the BIOS and turn it off.
Why?
What if Microsoft Windows refuses to start unless it is turned on, so the choice is either run Windows OR (this is an exclusive OR) run Linux/*BSD/Whatever.
Well it's always an exclusive OR as to which one you run, you don't run them both at the same time. Anyway Windows 8 doesn't require secureboot so you can turn it off and still run it and any other OS you like.
The existence of Windows 8 should NOT end the manufacture of sane, open computer systems. Period.
Are you suggesting it will? Nothing stops you from running Linux on an x86 Windows 8 computer.
In the end, the easiest thing is to pay a one-time fee of $99 to MS and have them sign a mini-bootloader that can start up grub. That doesn't sound like such a big deal to me.
Aaaaaand... this is precisely where the control of the keys lies. No, $99 is not a big deal for Redhat. Trusting M$ won't "Ooops, lol.. guess we borked your key sign just before you had that big competing product release. Gee, sorry. We'll get that fixed right away."
Except its Verisign, not Microsoft.
Not anymore. Have you even read what TFA is about?
How do you come to this conclusion? Turn secureboot off and it's exactly the same as it is now.
Let's use this scheme that makes it impossible for drivers to be signed with multiple keys simultaneously.
Why would you sign a driver with multiple keys?
And the reason Red Had had to pay Microsoft is that the MS's proposal only permits one key
No, the reason they have to pay (it's actually not to Microsoft, it's to Verisign since they actually sign it) is because they want to sign it with Microsoft's key rather than having hardware manufacturers implement RedHat's own key.
so the hardware manufacturers can either permit RH's key or MS's key, not both.
Why? I haven't seen anything that suggests it is limited to one key.
They are paying MS to sign their OS with MS's key.
Actually, if you RTFA, you'll find they're paying Verisign.
How can this be legal and not an abuse of their monopoly power?
Probably because it's optional. Assuming you even buy such hardware you can either turn if off and not use secure boot and you're in the same position as you are now, or if really want to use secureboot on a linux install you can pay the fee (to Verisign) or use a distro that has already done that.
Metro isn't a GUI for the desktop. It's a GUI for a tablet or a phone.
I couldn't have said it better myself. The real problem is... why does Microsoft insist on forcing it onto desktop users?
Couldn't you just put a 'Show Desktop' shortcut in the Startup folder? Then the only reason to use the start screen is to launch programs that you don't have pinned to your taskbar, so it's basically just clicking an icon there rather than clicking through the start menu, no more difficult anyway.
People are fully justified in taking serious action against people who do that kind of stuff.
Like not buying their products, problem solved.
The first is "Tivoization". Vendors should not hardwire checks to prevent "unapproved" software from being run. Makes no difference whether these checks are done in the software or hardware. Such a check really is software no matter that it's been hardwired in. With a scheme like that in place, you can't fix so much as a typo let alone a simple bug. Linus is apparently okay with Tivoization.
Of course, Linus cares about the Linux kernel code, not imposing any kinds of restrictions on the other software that you run or imposing any kind of restrictions on the hardware that you run the software on, just the Linux kernel code. He outlines it pretty clearly here, a choice quote: "-- I'm against "you cannot do xyz with the code.""
Vendors should not hardwire checks to prevent "unapproved" software from being run.
Actually you should not buy vendor-locked hardware. Obviously alternatives exist and in the case of TiVo you even have the FOSS software modifications they made so you can see what they do. But for example if you want a tablet to run whatever software you want you don't go and buy an iPad, you choose from one of the many open alternatives, you don't try and force everyone to do things your way. No-one is forcing you to buy a closed device, that's your choice.
Please. Sony is part and parcel of all the RIAA/MPAA lawsuits against people violating their copyright. Yet one of their public representatives is concerned about someone enforcing the terms of the GPL and seeks a way to "protect" people from them.
While I think Tim will probably continue to give his personal support the ToyBox project (note: Sony has *not* given its support to ToyBox -- that was reported incorrectly), it was clear that much of Tim's worries about Conservancy's enforcement efforts were based on rumors spread by a few people and those rumors weren't accurate.
http://lwn.net/Articles/483016/
They wanted an alternative not because it was superior but because it would allow for a legal dodge to avoid licensing compliance.
Do you object to bionic as well? In any case here's the reasoning behind the project, no real problem with that.
I just wonder, why isn't it the development model for Microsoft anyway? As I recall, there was always the iteration between a "beta" Windows and the "stable" Windows. Win 3.11 (stable), then Win 95 (beta), Win Mil (beta), and then Windows 2000, Windows XP (stable), then Vista (beta), then Windows 7 (stable).
I think you've missed a couple and the general timeline is a bit off, they aren't really sequential like that, for desktop OSes there's:
3.x, 95, 98, ME, then this line was killed and merged with the NT line at XP.
The NT-based versions:
NT4, 2000, XP, Vista, 7.
You do if you want to record it and then have a smooth super-slow-motion replay.
The problem is actually exactly the opposite of what the original poster thinks. Microsoft is making too much of a break with the past with Windows 8
I disagree, all they've done is change the landing screen to be the start screen, which replaces the start menu. As far as the traditional desktop workflow is concerned the only thing that has changed is the application launcher (assuming you prefer the start menu to the taskbar). To look at it it might appear that things are drastically different, but when you actually use it it becomes apparent that not much has changed at all from the way you work in windows 7.
I really hope it doesn't have that tablet interface.
Why would it? It's a server.
The last thing I need is to work in an office administered by an sysadmin that needs a touchscreen to do his job.
Huh? Where would there be an interface that requires a touchscreen?
Difference is that if your local power/connectivity goes out you're probably stuffed either way. But if you're using a 'cloud' solution and the provider's power/connectivity - or something along the way - goes out then your local operation is still good to go but your hamstrung because your data is offsite, if your data was local you'd be fine.
No. And Windows 8 can't survive in any world. Metro is going to sink Windows.
Aside from "a train" and "a cellphone company" what is this Metro which you think is going to sink windows?
It's basically just the start screen instead of the start menu, i don't particularly like it and i'd prefer an option to default to the desktop with a start menu but i hardly see this as 'sinking Windows', we've seen plenty of fairly drastic changes over the years and all the set-in-their-ways geeks decry every change as the death knell of whatever product but it very rarely is.
Oooh I live in Australia: no!
What's the problem?
I'm no fan of IE, but I'm skeptical of the $100,000 savings.
I'm more skeptical because the website seems to work fine in IE9, not sure what that $100,000 is even for.
It's got a touch screen. A phone with a keyboard and a touch screen is a big WTF in my mind.
Why? Your computer probably has a keyboard and a mouse.