I wonder what a breakdown would look like of who graduated from the school of Law and Business at those respective colleges. Probably a significant portion.
I don't think that was the implication he was making. State schools are the most likely to accept community college credits. This is a perfectly valid and acceptable path for an education, even if you're not at the #1 school.
I know it's in the list, but is Harvard generally considered a tech school? I know personally I never have. Law, medicine, liberal arts and sciences, sure. But I've never considered them up there with MIT, CMU, Cal Tech, GA Tech, and Stanford.
I don't know what the rest of GA Tech is like, but you've got my respect for your robotics program (my field). I've met some faculty and researchers from GA Tech at conferences and in my travels, and they're top notch.
Actually looking more closely at TFA, much of the low acceptance rate for Stanford and MIT can also be attributed to the fact their early admissions are not binding. When I played the application game in highschool, I applied to a single dream school early admission and saved the rest of my apps for when that decision came in. In this case, you can apply to MIT *and* Stanford early admission, and maybe any other schools that do this, effectively giving you two rounds of decisions.
Either way, the "reach" school concept applies, because you always want to apply to your reach school as early decision. That way you know early if you don't get in and can apply to some other reach schools for regular admissions.
Part of the perception of low acceptance for these schools is the concept of a "reach" school that counselors push on students. The idea is you apply to schools from different strata: safety, match, and reach. Your safety school are your fallbacks that you'll likely get into with no problem. The match school are those which you exceed or meet the qualifications. And the reach schools you can guess are the dream schools you apply to. You don't meet the acceptance criteria (grades, SAT, extracurriculars too low) but you apply anyway on the off chance you make it in somehow. The thing is, this batch of reach schools is the same for everyone: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, etc. This is why you see 6000+ applications for MIT, Stanfard, etc.
Take a look at lesser known CMU (and I should know, I went there. When friends and relatives ask me where I attended, it's always followed by "Oh... and where is that?"). They admitted LESS students than MIT, but ended up with double the acceptance rate because 6x as many students applied to MIT, most of them probably completely unqualified because they chose MIT as a "reach" school.
So if someone sets up a computer for me or I borrow a computer or I'm like most people and skip the slow boring tutorial then I'm fucked?
If someone sets up a computer for you, they might want to ask your input on thing like your username, password, account settings, preferences, etc. The tutorial plays right after the account is set up. If you set up someone with a *nix box, do you configure the whole thing and send them on their way, or do you explain a few basics to them?
If you borrow a computer, why should you expect to know how to use it instantly? How is not knowing how to use windows 8 any different from not knowing about the auto-hide function for the taskbar does? In both cases, you approach a strange computer and the start button is missing.
As for skipping the tutorial, want to know how I know you haven't set up a Windows 8 machine before? You can't skip it. It plays as your account is being set up, and takes about 10 seconds, then loops.
Keep in mind Microsoft is one of the companies that pushed to kill off instruction booklets in games because apparently no one wants instructions. They just want to jump in. Therefore the game has to be more obvious and they can skip the manual. So why doesn't that apply to their other software?
Most of the games I've ever played come with at least a button mapping insert, and this can also be accessed in game. During the game, there is usually some sort of tutorial level or beginner stage where functions are introduced gradually and/or explained in detail as you need them. Skyrim/Oblivion comes to mind as a good example of this, as well as games I've played on my iPad and Windows Phone.
Either way, you are wrong about the motivation for killing off big manuals; it was a cost saving move. Remember when games used to come in those giant boxes with big glossy embossed pictures and thick manuals? Apparently it's a LOT cheaper to put them in a little plastic box with a glossy insert.
Need any more proof? Best part is I took the screenshot on the Ubuntu machine, moved it onto the phone via drag and drop, then uploaded it to imgur using an app.
Also, it is very amusing to me that you imply my post is a shill, when all I'm doing is pointing out *factual errors* you somehow managed to get modded up as informative. I can manage my Lumia 920 just fine on my Ubuntu machines. By all means though, keep plugging your ears.
Skydrive, the more or less standard way to get stuff in and out of Windows Phones
Wrong, Windows Phone 8 mounts specific folders on the phone. I can trasnfer documents, music, videos, pictures, and ringtones via explorer without a special client.
Works fine in Chrome, Opera, and Firefox for me. Are you on a mobile browser? But anyway, you can sort by OS. HP Elitepad is $700, Dell Latitude 10 is $650, Lenovo Thinpad Tablet 2 is $650, and the Acer Iconia Tab W510 is $500. All run full Windows 8.
As much as they're derided here on Slashdot, every Windows tablet comes with at least one full size USB port, some form of video out (either full hdmi, mini display port, or micro hdmi), and only one model doesn't come with an SD card slot. These tablets are coming from Asus, Samsung, Sony, Lenovo, Dell, Acer, HP, Fujitsu, Toshiba, and Microsoft.
With respect to the cheap tablets, I see they have improved, but they still have bottom of the barrel spec. 480x800 displays? 4GB storage space? Limited inertial senors, no 3G, no gps, low res cameras.... The reviews basically universally say you get what you pay for. They're good for web browsing, light gaming, and maybe e-reading, although a dedicated kindle is a better buy if you're going to be doing that. So again, if price were the only thing that mattered, you would have a point. Problem is the fact that these tablets are not blockbuster sellers like iPad proves otherwise.
and you bring into the discussion not a comparison to commonly available and well-selling tablets, but from one generation of not-selling Intel tablet
Um.... You were the one who originally brought up the old generation intel tablets, and pointed to them as a reason the new generation wouldn't sell. There are *reasons* they didn't sell, which I addressed in my comments, and for the most part, as I also point out, those shortcomings have all been addressed.
And in case you missed it (as it seems you didn't even finish reading my comment. Why bother replying if you won't afford me that courtesy?), I did indeed compare the new intel tablets to a current well-selling tablet, the iPad. I showed the Dell Latitude 10 in almost every regard is better for enterprise: size, weight, battery life, price, expansion, accessories, device compatibility, software compatibility... All meet or exceed iPad. Even Windows 8 is better suited for enterprise on tablets than iOS. Screen resolution is probably the only areas the iPad wins.
The mainstream Intel processor versions don't have the battery life you speak of, nor the sexy slimline form factors, nor the low weights of competing tablets.
Actually, the W700 does. It clocks in at 7 hour with a mainstream core i3. It's available now. They may not be as slim and light as other tablets, but 2 lbs and half an inch thick isn't exactly a brick. And again, this is in comparison to the previous generation tablets which were 3-4 pounds and an inch+ thick.
On price, you can get a 7" Android tablet now for $90, or 10" for $130 - and they work fine.
You're seriously bringing $99 rite aid tablets into this discussion? These things are the lowest, most terrible pieces of computing tech out there. Terrible screens, little to no memory, tiny on board flash storage, no name brand with no name support. The *only* thing they have going for them is price. If that's all consumers cared about, you would have a point.
Ability to run legacy apps is a trap. They're deprecating legacy apps. Eventually they want to break app compat with legacy apps because the situation has become unmaintainable.
Where do you get this idea? The desktop is there for a reason, and these apps aren't going away anytime soon for corporations. If there's one thing Microsoft actually understands, it's the importance of legacy support. Windows RT is a different matter, but this is Windows 8 we're talking about.
A Windows tablet is something you sell to somebody you never want to darken your doorstep again. It's a "farewell product". As IT staff it's the last joke you play on the customers who tormented you before you retire. This is not going to go well for Microsoft.
I actually worked for a company whose business was specifically to sell the old generation tablets to businesses. It was very niche, but for the applications at the time there was nothing better. We mostly sold to medical professionals, contractors, and government. The medical people used tablets like the motion computing c5 as a sort of digital chart and had specialty software for it. The contractors and government customers used them mostly for the signature capabilities and the ability to mark up drawings on the job. Our customers like the solutions we provided, and the new crop of devices are better in every single way.
Tablets like the Dell Latitude 10 shipping next month are.4" thick and weigh 1.3 lbs. This is the same size as iPad, runs just as long, runs legacy software, comes with built in USB, HDMI, SD ports, removable battery, and to boot costs less. There's really nothing not to like about tablets like this.
Virtually all previous gen windows tablets started well above $1000, with many reaching $2000. They were exclusively marketed toward business, and had an OS that didn't support touch screens well... some didn't even have touch screens, only stylus digitizers. They lasted well under 2 hours on battery, they weighed 3+ pounds, and had underpowered single core ulv processors.
Fast forward to today. Cost has come down considerably. Surface starts at $899 but other x86 tablets like the dell latitude 10 start at $680. The surface pro comes in at the low end of the battery life spectrum with 4-5 hours, but tablets like the acer w700 clock in at 7+ hours. They're light, they're fast, and they are powerful. Top it off with windows 8, which, for as much as its pegged here on slashdot, actually shines on a tablet.
It an entirely different environment, and the current gen windows tablets are entirely different machines, even just 3 years later.
They seem to be more focused on the DRM aspect in your link, and again here. What I'm saying is that this campaign against one single implementation of a locked bootloader means absolutely nothing if the leader in the marketplace has sold 100 millino locked down units and you've done nothing to stop that. If the FSF succeeds with their campaign, most tablets sold will *still* be locked down. What will they gain by this?
Think of it like a boss battle, where the boss is supported by many little nuisance helpers. Sure you can pick off the helpers, but when they're all dead the boss is still there.
FSF did complain about iPad, but it seems they were focused on the DRM aspect of the store. Did they also start a campaign about the locked bootloader? I'm just looking at the practicality of their campaign... if they were really concerned about the practice, perhaps they should have started this campaign before Apple sold 100 million locked down iPads, and turned locking down tablets into an industry standard. Microsoft has carte blanche to lock down Windows RT because they can point any government agency to Apple and say "They're the market leaders in this space and they lock down their hardware."
The "Apple does it too" line doesn't nullify what MS is doing, but it does make stopping their efforts much more difficult for FSF.
So then they're fine with the way Windows 8 handles it? Because that's exactly what Microsoft demands of computer manufacturers who want to be certified for Windows 8.
Windows RT is a whole different matter, but Windows RT also accounts for about 0% of the tablet market right now. Why is the FSF making all this noise now, when Apple has been happily locking down the iPad since 2010? Microsoft is just joining the party, and it seems a little late for FSF to get self-righteous about it.
But more power to them I guess. It seems like a tough fight, however, when users have a great deal of choice between tablets (both locked and unlocked), even with the locking down of certain hardware.
Because the competitive landscape is so much different when you consider just ARM devices. There, the number one selling tablet with the largest marketshare (iPad) also locks down the bootloader. But if you don't like that, you also have the option of buying about 1000 different varieties of tablets with unlocked bootloaders. Microsoft is doing nothing different from Apple in this respect. It's funny though, that Slashdot spends most of its time reaming out the Surface as a failed product, but in threads like this one it's the end of computing as we know it.
Microsoft has made it crystal clear that they can and will use UEFI to lock computers AGAINST their owners and to anti-competively lock out any possibility to load alternate operating systems when they do not have to worry about compatibility with older versions of Windows.
Why does this matter at all on ARM? Currently, the number one selling tablet manufacturer in the ARM space does this, and it aint Microsoft. Apple does everything in their power to prevent you from running Linux on iPad. And you know what? I have absolutely no problem with that, because if I want an unlocked tablet I can just go buy any of the dozens of varieties. Choice is good. Microsoft entering the space does not take that choice away, and it doesn't appear that it will any time soon.
x86 is an entirely different land. I contend that Microsoft's requirement has less to do about backwards compatibility and much much more to do with not running afoul of antritrust regulations. Honestly, Microsoft has nothing to worry about in the x86 space. Their biggest competitor here won't even allow their OS to be installed on generic x86 hardware. Their second biggest competitor is so far removed, they're hardly worth considering. If Linux were gaining any traction before this whole thing started, I would say "yeah, maybe they are getting worried" but Desktop Linux is holding strong at
So in fact, probably the *worst* thing Microsoft could do is lock down x86 bootloaders for anticompetitive reasons, because there is no real competition on the desktop to Windows. They would be inviting DOJ and EU oversight where this is no need to, as there is no credible threat. As it stands, Microsoft's biggest threat to their desktop marketshare is the dwindling PC market due to the locked down iPad.
Apple has sold 100 million iPads so far. Microsoft has sold a mere fraction of that in ARM tablets. In that sense, your capslock-infused rage seems misdirected, as Apple is the one leading the charge in locked down bootloaders on ARM devices. I personally have no problem with it, but it seems strange to me all this rage wasn't abound in 2010. Where was the FSF campaign when Apple was getting started with iPad? Or in 2006 with locked down iPhone? Now this practice is commonplace, and the target isn't even the correct company; even if they get Microsoft to completely change their practice, 99% of ARM tablets sold will still be locked down.
That's a pretty good summary. I'd like to add the following. Prenda law is now defunct, and according to the state of Illanois not in good standing with the state. The name was changed to the Anti Piracy Law Group shortly after the allegations about Allen Cooper came out. John Steele purports to have nothing to do with Prenda Law, which was formerly Steele Hansmeier. The name was changed after it was sold to Brett Gibbs, who is now supposedly a principal of Prenda. However, lawyers who have tried getting in touch with Gibbs and Prenda law are invariably directed to John Steele. The doormen at Prenda's address have never heard of a Brett Gibbs, but know of John Steele. And recently, PDF documents signed by Brett Gibbs contain metadata that indicates the document was created on a computer registered dot John Steele's ex wife.
So that's John Steele. Then there's this whole deal with Guava cases. The summary you provided was a tactic that worked well until judges started getting wise to the tactics. Now judges are mitigating the extent that Prenda can extort people by providing protections to defendants, such as the ability to remain anonymous while fighting subpoenas on their identifying information. Most recently one offshore client, AF Holdings, was required to post a $40,000 bond to proceed with a case. This severely hampers their ability to operate.
Now they are using a fake company named Guava LLC to bring hacking and conspiracy charges to state courts, instead of copyright infringement charges to federal courts where courts are wisening up. Problem is the hacking charges are all seeking relief as if they were copyright claims, using rights granted specifically by the copyright act. They have sued thousands of pele using this dirty trick.
So that's where we are now. With this latest ruling, hopefully good lawyers will start digging into Steele's history and uncover misdeeds grave enough to send him to prison and strip him of all his ill-gotten gains.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder what a breakdown would look like of who graduated from the school of Law and Business at those respective colleges. Probably a significant portion.
I see, I was a little confused by their wording. Still, this policy makes Stanford a pretty good early decision pick if you have many to choose from.
I don't think that was the implication he was making. State schools are the most likely to accept community college credits. This is a perfectly valid and acceptable path for an education, even if you're not at the #1 school.
Thanks Capt. Grammar! Want to correct all the other spelling and grammar mistakes I made in my post as well? There are plenty you missed.
I know it's in the list, but is Harvard generally considered a tech school? I know personally I never have. Law, medicine, liberal arts and sciences, sure. But I've never considered them up there with MIT, CMU, Cal Tech, GA Tech, and Stanford.
I don't know what the rest of GA Tech is like, but you've got my respect for your robotics program (my field). I've met some faculty and researchers from GA Tech at conferences and in my travels, and they're top notch.
Actually looking more closely at TFA, much of the low acceptance rate for Stanford and MIT can also be attributed to the fact their early admissions are not binding. When I played the application game in highschool, I applied to a single dream school early admission and saved the rest of my apps for when that decision came in. In this case, you can apply to MIT *and* Stanford early admission, and maybe any other schools that do this, effectively giving you two rounds of decisions.
Either way, the "reach" school concept applies, because you always want to apply to your reach school as early decision. That way you know early if you don't get in and can apply to some other reach schools for regular admissions.
Part of the perception of low acceptance for these schools is the concept of a "reach" school that counselors push on students. The idea is you apply to schools from different strata: safety, match, and reach. Your safety school are your fallbacks that you'll likely get into with no problem. The match school are those which you exceed or meet the qualifications. And the reach schools you can guess are the dream schools you apply to. You don't meet the acceptance criteria (grades, SAT, extracurriculars too low) but you apply anyway on the off chance you make it in somehow. The thing is, this batch of reach schools is the same for everyone: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, etc. This is why you see 6000+ applications for MIT, Stanfard, etc.
Take a look at lesser known CMU (and I should know, I went there. When friends and relatives ask me where I attended, it's always followed by "Oh... and where is that?"). They admitted LESS students than MIT, but ended up with double the acceptance rate because 6x as many students applied to MIT, most of them probably completely unqualified because they chose MIT as a "reach" school.
So if someone sets up a computer for me or I borrow a computer or I'm like most people and skip the slow boring tutorial then I'm fucked?
If someone sets up a computer for you, they might want to ask your input on thing like your username, password, account settings, preferences, etc. The tutorial plays right after the account is set up. If you set up someone with a *nix box, do you configure the whole thing and send them on their way, or do you explain a few basics to them?
If you borrow a computer, why should you expect to know how to use it instantly? How is not knowing how to use windows 8 any different from not knowing about the auto-hide function for the taskbar does? In both cases, you approach a strange computer and the start button is missing.
As for skipping the tutorial, want to know how I know you haven't set up a Windows 8 machine before? You can't skip it. It plays as your account is being set up, and takes about 10 seconds, then loops.
Keep in mind Microsoft is one of the companies that pushed to kill off instruction booklets in games because apparently no one wants instructions. They just want to jump in. Therefore the game has to be more obvious and they can skip the manual. So why doesn't that apply to their other software?
Most of the games I've ever played come with at least a button mapping insert, and this can also be accessed in game. During the game, there is usually some sort of tutorial level or beginner stage where functions are introduced gradually and/or explained in detail as you need them. Skyrim/Oblivion comes to mind as a good example of this, as well as games I've played on my iPad and Windows Phone.
Either way, you are wrong about the motivation for killing off big manuals; it was a cost saving move. Remember when games used to come in those giant boxes with big glossy embossed pictures and thick manuals? Apparently it's a LOT cheaper to put them in a little plastic box with a glossy insert.
http://i.imgur.com/2Zp0G.jpg
Need any more proof? Best part is I took the screenshot on the Ubuntu machine, moved it onto the phone via drag and drop, then uploaded it to imgur using an app.
Also, it is very amusing to me that you imply my post is a shill, when all I'm doing is pointing out *factual errors* you somehow managed to get modded up as informative. I can manage my Lumia 920 just fine on my Ubuntu machines. By all means though, keep plugging your ears.
Skydrive, the more or less standard way to get stuff in and out of Windows Phones
Wrong, Windows Phone 8 mounts specific folders on the phone. I can trasnfer documents, music, videos, pictures, and ringtones via explorer without a special client.
http://www.gsmarena.com/windows_phone_8_to_get_mass_storage_and_screenshot_support-news-4530.php
Works fine in Chrome, Opera, and Firefox for me. Are you on a mobile browser? But anyway, you can sort by OS. HP Elitepad is $700, Dell Latitude 10 is $650, Lenovo Thinpad Tablet 2 is $650, and the Acer Iconia Tab W510 is $500. All run full Windows 8.
The Acer Iconia w510 starts at $499 and runs Windows 8. Check out the link I posted, there are a number which start less than $749.
As much as they're derided here on Slashdot, every Windows tablet comes with at least one full size USB port, some form of video out (either full hdmi, mini display port, or micro hdmi), and only one model doesn't come with an SD card slot. These tablets are coming from Asus, Samsung, Sony, Lenovo, Dell, Acer, HP, Fujitsu, Toshiba, and Microsoft.
Here's a pretty comprehensive list of the current offerings with sortable specs: https://skydrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=DA410C7F7E038D!9136&app=Excel
With respect to the cheap tablets, I see they have improved, but they still have bottom of the barrel spec. 480x800 displays? 4GB storage space? Limited inertial senors, no 3G, no gps, low res cameras.... The reviews basically universally say you get what you pay for. They're good for web browsing, light gaming, and maybe e-reading, although a dedicated kindle is a better buy if you're going to be doing that. So again, if price were the only thing that mattered, you would have a point. Problem is the fact that these tablets are not blockbuster sellers like iPad proves otherwise.
and you bring into the discussion not a comparison to commonly available and well-selling tablets, but from one generation of not-selling Intel tablet
Um.... You were the one who originally brought up the old generation intel tablets, and pointed to them as a reason the new generation wouldn't sell. There are *reasons* they didn't sell, which I addressed in my comments, and for the most part, as I also point out, those shortcomings have all been addressed.
And in case you missed it (as it seems you didn't even finish reading my comment. Why bother replying if you won't afford me that courtesy?), I did indeed compare the new intel tablets to a current well-selling tablet, the iPad. I showed the Dell Latitude 10 in almost every regard is better for enterprise: size, weight, battery life, price, expansion, accessories, device compatibility, software compatibility... All meet or exceed iPad. Even Windows 8 is better suited for enterprise on tablets than iOS. Screen resolution is probably the only areas the iPad wins.
On battery life, the Atoms that were promised for Christmas are delayed until summer for driver issues related to sleep states.
No, they have been delayed until next month. At least as far as HP and Dell go.
The mainstream Intel processor versions don't have the battery life you speak of, nor the sexy slimline form factors, nor the low weights of competing tablets.
Actually, the W700 does. It clocks in at 7 hour with a mainstream core i3. It's available now. They may not be as slim and light as other tablets, but 2 lbs and half an inch thick isn't exactly a brick. And again, this is in comparison to the previous generation tablets which were 3-4 pounds and an inch+ thick.
On price, you can get a 7" Android tablet now for $90, or 10" for $130 - and they work fine.
You're seriously bringing $99 rite aid tablets into this discussion? These things are the lowest, most terrible pieces of computing tech out there. Terrible screens, little to no memory, tiny on board flash storage, no name brand with no name support. The *only* thing they have going for them is price. If that's all consumers cared about, you would have a point.
Ability to run legacy apps is a trap. They're deprecating legacy apps. Eventually they want to break app compat with legacy apps because the situation has become unmaintainable.
Where do you get this idea? The desktop is there for a reason, and these apps aren't going away anytime soon for corporations. If there's one thing Microsoft actually understands, it's the importance of legacy support. Windows RT is a different matter, but this is Windows 8 we're talking about.
A Windows tablet is something you sell to somebody you never want to darken your doorstep again. It's a "farewell product". As IT staff it's the last joke you play on the customers who tormented you before you retire. This is not going to go well for Microsoft.
I actually worked for a company whose business was specifically to sell the old generation tablets to businesses. It was very niche, but for the applications at the time there was nothing better. We mostly sold to medical professionals, contractors, and government. The medical people used tablets like the motion computing c5 as a sort of digital chart and had specialty software for it. The contractors and government customers used them mostly for the signature capabilities and the ability to mark up drawings on the job. Our customers like the solutions we provided, and the new crop of devices are better in every single way.
.4" thick and weigh 1.3 lbs. This is the same size as iPad, runs just as long, runs legacy software, comes with built in USB, HDMI, SD ports, removable battery, and to boot costs less. There's really nothing not to like about tablets like this.
Tablets like the Dell Latitude 10 shipping next month are
Virtually all previous gen windows tablets started well above $1000, with many reaching $2000. They were exclusively marketed toward business, and had an OS that didn't support touch screens well... some didn't even have touch screens, only stylus digitizers. They lasted well under 2 hours on battery, they weighed 3+ pounds, and had underpowered single core ulv processors.
Fast forward to today. Cost has come down considerably. Surface starts at $899 but other x86 tablets like the dell latitude 10 start at $680. The surface pro comes in at the low end of the battery life spectrum with 4-5 hours, but tablets like the acer w700 clock in at 7+ hours. They're light, they're fast, and they are powerful. Top it off with windows 8, which, for as much as its pegged here on slashdot, actually shines on a tablet.
It an entirely different environment, and the current gen windows tablets are entirely different machines, even just 3 years later.
They seem to be more focused on the DRM aspect in your link, and again here. What I'm saying is that this campaign against one single implementation of a locked bootloader means absolutely nothing if the leader in the marketplace has sold 100 millino locked down units and you've done nothing to stop that. If the FSF succeeds with their campaign, most tablets sold will *still* be locked down. What will they gain by this?
Think of it like a boss battle, where the boss is supported by many little nuisance helpers. Sure you can pick off the helpers, but when they're all dead the boss is still there.
FSF did complain about iPad, but it seems they were focused on the DRM aspect of the store. Did they also start a campaign about the locked bootloader? I'm just looking at the practicality of their campaign... if they were really concerned about the practice, perhaps they should have started this campaign before Apple sold 100 million locked down iPads, and turned locking down tablets into an industry standard. Microsoft has carte blanche to lock down Windows RT because they can point any government agency to Apple and say "They're the market leaders in this space and they lock down their hardware."
The "Apple does it too" line doesn't nullify what MS is doing, but it does make stopping their efforts much more difficult for FSF.
So then they're fine with the way Windows 8 handles it? Because that's exactly what Microsoft demands of computer manufacturers who want to be certified for Windows 8.
Windows RT is a whole different matter, but Windows RT also accounts for about 0% of the tablet market right now. Why is the FSF making all this noise now, when Apple has been happily locking down the iPad since 2010? Microsoft is just joining the party, and it seems a little late for FSF to get self-righteous about it.
But more power to them I guess. It seems like a tough fight, however, when users have a great deal of choice between tablets (both locked and unlocked), even with the locking down of certain hardware.
This is my wife driving. Watch the grey SUV on the right lane at 00:09.
I think your wife singing in the car is funnier. You could have cut this video at 00:10.
Because the competitive landscape is so much different when you consider just ARM devices. There, the number one selling tablet with the largest marketshare (iPad) also locks down the bootloader. But if you don't like that, you also have the option of buying about 1000 different varieties of tablets with unlocked bootloaders. Microsoft is doing nothing different from Apple in this respect. It's funny though, that Slashdot spends most of its time reaming out the Surface as a failed product, but in threads like this one it's the end of computing as we know it.
Microsoft has made it crystal clear that they can and will use UEFI to lock computers AGAINST their owners and to anti-competively lock out any possibility to load alternate operating systems when they do not have to worry about compatibility with older versions of Windows.
Why does this matter at all on ARM? Currently, the number one selling tablet manufacturer in the ARM space does this, and it aint Microsoft. Apple does everything in their power to prevent you from running Linux on iPad. And you know what? I have absolutely no problem with that, because if I want an unlocked tablet I can just go buy any of the dozens of varieties. Choice is good. Microsoft entering the space does not take that choice away, and it doesn't appear that it will any time soon.
x86 is an entirely different land. I contend that Microsoft's requirement has less to do about backwards compatibility and much much more to do with not running afoul of antritrust regulations. Honestly, Microsoft has nothing to worry about in the x86 space. Their biggest competitor here won't even allow their OS to be installed on generic x86 hardware. Their second biggest competitor is so far removed, they're hardly worth considering. If Linux were gaining any traction before this whole thing started, I would say "yeah, maybe they are getting worried" but Desktop Linux is holding strong at
So in fact, probably the *worst* thing Microsoft could do is lock down x86 bootloaders for anticompetitive reasons, because there is no real competition on the desktop to Windows. They would be inviting DOJ and EU oversight where this is no need to, as there is no credible threat. As it stands, Microsoft's biggest threat to their desktop marketshare is the dwindling PC market due to the locked down iPad.
Apple has sold 100 million iPads so far. Microsoft has sold a mere fraction of that in ARM tablets. In that sense, your capslock-infused rage seems misdirected, as Apple is the one leading the charge in locked down bootloaders on ARM devices. I personally have no problem with it, but it seems strange to me all this rage wasn't abound in 2010. Where was the FSF campaign when Apple was getting started with iPad? Or in 2006 with locked down iPhone? Now this practice is commonplace, and the target isn't even the correct company; even if they get Microsoft to completely change their practice, 99% of ARM tablets sold will still be locked down.
Any x86 machine must also include the ability to turn secure boot off as well, according to ms win8 certification guidelines.
That's a pretty good summary. I'd like to add the following. Prenda law is now defunct, and according to the state of Illanois not in good standing with the state. The name was changed to the Anti Piracy Law Group shortly after the allegations about Allen Cooper came out. John Steele purports to have nothing to do with Prenda Law, which was formerly Steele Hansmeier. The name was changed after it was sold to Brett Gibbs, who is now supposedly a principal of Prenda. However, lawyers who have tried getting in touch with Gibbs and Prenda law are invariably directed to John Steele. The doormen at Prenda's address have never heard of a Brett Gibbs, but know of John Steele. And recently, PDF documents signed by Brett Gibbs contain metadata that indicates the document was created on a computer registered dot John Steele's ex wife.
So that's John Steele. Then there's this whole deal with Guava cases. The summary you provided was a tactic that worked well until judges started getting wise to the tactics. Now judges are mitigating the extent that Prenda can extort people by providing protections to defendants, such as the ability to remain anonymous while fighting subpoenas on their identifying information. Most recently one offshore client, AF Holdings, was required to post a $40,000 bond to proceed with a case. This severely hampers their ability to operate.
Now they are using a fake company named Guava LLC to bring hacking and conspiracy charges to state courts, instead of copyright infringement charges to federal courts where courts are wisening up. Problem is the hacking charges are all seeking relief as if they were copyright claims, using rights granted specifically by the copyright act. They have sued thousands of pele using this dirty trick.
So that's where we are now. With this latest ruling, hopefully good lawyers will start digging into Steele's history and uncover misdeeds grave enough to send him to prison and strip him of all his ill-gotten gains.