HTML video elements can specify any number of sources AFAIK. Exploiting this will be essential for a long time I'm afraid. Standardized codecs won't be possible until the scourge of software patents has been vanquished, which won't happen in our lifetimes.
Yes, I think that's exactly why this is interesting. Increasingly, PCs have multiple video outputs of various types as well as multiple GPUs. If you can decouple the GPU used to render something from the output used to display it without a huge performance hit, that opens up all kinds of possibilities.
Does anyone know if this would this provide a performance boost over something like VNC for similar things? Or how about the possibility to pass rendered output as a fake video capture card input to a virtual machine? I think I get what this does, but I'm kind of wondering how exactly it's better than current solutions to these problems.
An obvious way to use this would be to target some kind of virtual frame buffer in regular RAM that VNC or other remote protocol could take advantage of. Currently, you have to point VNC to a real frame buffer that is displayed on a GPU's output to take advantage of the acceleration. However, if you switched the virtual frame buffer the GPU renders to, you could have acceleration for an arbitrary number of them as long as applications don't need to use acceleration features all the time.
It doesn't sound to me like this is that much like either PulseAudio or Jack. Those are both sound systems based on userspace daemons focused on flexible sound mixing, while this virtual graphics system is within the Linux kernel and seems to be focused on simply moving pixels from one hardware device to some other device.
Wayland is more like PulseAudio or Jack for graphics. Its proponents think it has advantages over the much thicker, more complex daemon we've used for decades called the X11 server.
Though your idea is interesting, I doubt it could benefit from the virtual graphics approach described in TFA. This is about rendering pixels to arbitrary outputs, while it sounds like you're talking about much higher level manipulation. There are already capable, programmable DSPs for advanced audio processing such as the EMU10k1 series from Creative and I expect you could use OpenCL or something like it to do sound processing on a GPU if desired.
Does that mean that Oracle is actually suing Google to be more open in their implementation rather than shut it down?
While I wouldn't put it that way, technically yes.
However, the real reason is Oracle wants Google to pay royalties to them like all phones that use JavaME do.
Oracle is not suing Google to make anything more open. They are suing Google for patent infringement in code Google has already released as Free and Open Source software. Oracle is attempting to use their patents to extort money out of Google. I'm sure they'll do the same to anyone else with enough cash for them to think it's worth it.
Does copyleft mean that if you use something what you release has to also be open source and free? Does that mean that Oracle is actually suing Google to be more open in their implementation rather than shut it down?
Do we know why they won't open source the compliance tools? Does that effectively prevent other implementations of Java from existing? Do we know why Oracle wants that?
I forget that not everyone here is familiar with Free Software and Open Source licenses. Copyleft is "a general method for making a program (or other work) free, and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well." Since most of OpenJDK is under the GNU General Public License, the most common and best known Copyleft license, if you use any OpenJDK code as part of something which you release, it must also be released under the GPL. If you add some features to OpenJDK and release it, this applies, but it does not apply to Java programs complied by the OpenJDK compiler or Java bytecode running on the OpenJDK JVM.
In contrast, since the Apache Harmony project is under a permissive, non-Copyleft license, anyone is able to use it for any purpose, including using it in proprietary, non-Free software, which is what Google has done by using parts of it in Android.
Oracle does not want anything to be more open. I haven't been following their suit against Google closely, but I believe their claims are primarily about patent infringement. They have attempted to make some bogus copyright claims, but I think they've abandoned that by now since Google didn't use any of their code and doesn't seem to have violated anyone's copyright license. The patents Oracle is claiming Google violated are probably violated by anyone implementing Java whether they use OpenJDK, Harmony, or some unrelated implementation. Oracle seems to be saying, "as long as you use the implementation of Java we control, we probably won't sue you, but if you piss us off, all bets are off." Since patents covering software are independent of the implementation source code and language, this is potentially dangerous for anyone using Java and probably other languages.
Looking these planes up in Wikipedia isn't that hard. Try getting your story straight before correcting someone else with equally bad information.
First, the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle has been a very successful program which the Air Force certainly wanted. It will remain the USAF's most important air superiority fighter for many years since the F-22s intended to replace it turned out to be too expensive to be built in significant numbers.
Second, the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon is also a very successful fighter in service with numerous air forces in addition to the USAF. Because it's less expensive than the F-15, it could be manufactured in much greater numbers. The program which produced the F-16 met great resistance early on from F-15 proponents, who saw it as a threat to their program. However, a "high/low mix" doctrine would be developed and eventually allowed both programs to coexist peacefully. That same doctrine is partly what led to both the F-22 and F-35 programs, the F-22 being the "high" fighter and F-35 being the "low" one. Since the extremely high cost of the F-22 means that only 187 total are planned, the USAF will need a capable "low" fighter to replace its F-16s and probably some F-15s.
There are kernels of truth you that rant, but you seem very confused about the details of the aircraft. First, you're confusing the Republic F-105 Thunderchief, a figher bomber which entered service in 1958 with the General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark, which entered service in 1967.
Second, though the F-111 did have great development difficulty and a planned Navy interceptor version never materialized, it was a successful design overall. The F-111 was only suitable for ground attack roles despite its "F" designation, which seems to have been a product of the messy politics around its development. However, both the F-105 and F-111 were operated successfully by the USAF in ground attack missions, albeit with mixed reputations.
The Navy didn't get anything out of the F-111 project, but their following Grumman F-14 Tomcat did benefit from reusing parts of the F-111 program.
The F-15 was developed later than the F-111 and was never considered an alternative to it. Rather, the F-15 was developed to replace the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II. Incidently, the F-4 was a successful fighter used by the USAF, USN, and USMC so the idea that one basic design can satisfy all services has some historical basis.
Re:Affordable replacement for something paid for
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
The F-35 is supposed to be more effective than each of the aircraft it's intended to replace, though I know some are skeptical that it will be an improvement over either the F-16 or A-10. Though it may turn out that building and maintaining F-35s is more expensive than maintaining the older models indefinitely, that's not a logical certainty. Some of the designs it's intended to replace aren't being made at all any more, so re-starting production could be a huge cost. It's often the case that newer equipment designs are inherently less expensive to maintain while being more effective though there unfortunately doesn't seem to be as much incentive for military contractors produce efficient designs as in the civilian markets. That's supposed to be the case for the F-35, but given its history so far, it's easy to be skeptical.
You never know, that small business in Luxemburg just might transform itself to the largest corporation in the world. I think Apple is just hedging it bets on this one.
Clearly, Apple is conscious of their own history. They started in a garage, were sued by the Beatles' Apple Corps, then agreed to not sell music. They were sued a couple of more times when they decided they did really want to sell music after all. Those who ascend to the top must always be paranoid about who will replace them.
I can't help but wonder if the repeated Apple Corps suits are what gave Apple Computer the idea to sell music. I'm sure it never occurred to the AppleADay people to sell consumer electronics, but it's certainly on their minds now.
First, this story is months old and dates back to late August. Second, contrary to the headline, they're not threatening over the "AppleADay" name but the logo.
Third, as is pointed out every time an incident like this occurs, trademark owners have to take no chances and must enforce perceived violations or risk losing their right to it. There is always the risk that a court somewhere in the world might cite the lack of action in some particular case. But, since it's a "David v. Goliath" article, as the summary put it, it's an excellent story to submit to Slashdot and rile up the natives.
Since the two logos only resemble each other to the extent that they both depict apples, why isn't Apple suing Fruit of the Loom or Vic Fruit. Using the same logic, Red Hat would have to sue Arby's to maintain their trademark.
"Steve's dead, we're fucked. Better double the staff in the legal department to protect our position while we figure out what the hell we're gunna do."
Yeah, Apple certainly never brought frivolous patent infringement lawsuits while Steve was in charge. This is really just business as usual.
It seems that IBM started Harmony to produce a complete, permissively licensed implementation of the Java specifications, while OpenJDK is Copyleft. A year ago, IBM shifted their support to OpenJDK, so there's no longer a major sponsor for Harmony. That, in addition to the fact that Apache is no longer participating in the Java Community Process seems to be the reason there's little development going on in Harmony.
The reason that Apache resigned from the Java Community Process Executive Committee is that the Java specifications are completely controlled by Oracle, which doesn't allow their compliance test tools to be used freely. Harmony will remain in a similar relationship with Java that Mono has to DotNet rather than being a first class implementation. The significant difference between Java and DotNet seems to be that Sun/Oracle have released most (all?) of the official implementation as Free Software, but the specifications that software implement are still proprietary.
The main beneficiary of Harmony seems to be Google, which is using some code from the project as part of Android, though Android was never intended to be a complete Java implementation. They've made it clear that they want to use only permissively-licensed code so that they can release it as proprietary software whenever they want. That's exactly what they did with Android 3. While I'm glad IBM is now supporting a Copyleft implementation rather than a permissively-licensed implementation, a mature programming language system needs alternative implementations to keep the spec-writers honest. Oracle's handling of the specification process continues to prevent Java's use as a completely open system.
What exactly must I lack to win big in a casino? Seriously, the only way to consistently make money at a casino is by using skill. That's why casinos are always looking for the skillful players to kick them out. TFA is saying that luck plays a large role in the chance of success of an iApp, not that luck is the only thing that matters. Also similar to a casino is the fact that the house (Apple) always wins regardless of which app developers do.
What is definitely different about psychology is that experimentation on its subjects is far more difficult than most sciences. Psychologists can't generally keep their subjects in controlled environments or take them apart to see how they work. I'm sure a psychologist would tell you that observing and experimenting on members of one's own species, it is more difficult to remain objective than doing the same to lower animals or inanimate objects.
Not that I want to present a false dichotomy, but if you were "preference voting", i.e., listing your preferences in order, aside from the rest of the options, how would you order these two relative to one another?
Since coal and nuclear plants can vary quite a bit regarding chance of and magnitude of potential disasters, normal pollution raters and various other factors, I think you have to compare specific plant designs rather than simply lumping all coal and nuclear plants into two groups. We don't have any good way to replace all coal plants any time soon, but I think we need new, safe nuclear plants as well as more wind, hydroelectric, and solar plants to minimize the need for coal ones. The Fukushima disaster was terrible, but the experience gained from it can be used to avoid similar ones in the future.
We suggest that one aspect of this adaptation is to encompass metadata within a file abstraction
this before? Are resource forks coming back into vogue?
A little known feature that NTFS has had for long time is support for multiple streams per file, not just two. Some Microsoft apps use that I think, but I doubt many third party ones do. I was more interested in Reiser's approach of being able to treat the same name as either a normal file or a directory containing more ordinary files of metadata. Unfortunately, the fact that he's a convicted murder and doesn't seem to get along that well with other people generally has limited the dissemination of his interesting ideas. I can't even seem to find copies of his essays about ideas for future work on Reiser4 that used to be available at namesys.com
On second thought... it is public domain that is obsolete by their wording... And that is truly disheartening.
I interpreted TMBG's response to mean that it's pointless for them to worry about their work falling into the public domain, which supports the idea that copyright is obsolete. I think they're implying that the fact that their works are under copyright has little to do with how much money they make from them.
i expect this to be one more thing i either loathe or disable as a sysadmin. UEFI, welcome to the hallowed esteems of DRAC, BMC, IPMI, ACPI, and APMI.
Thankfully, those can mostly be ignored except ACPI. EFI in general certainly seems similar to ACPI in that it attempts to solve shortcomings of older systems in an unnecessarily complex way and is therefore doomed to be implemented incompletely and incorrectly. We certainly need something to replace the PC BIOS, but I'm not sure we need EFI. It would be awesome if all motherboard manufacturers and OEMs made Coreboot work on their systems. It can have payloads of Free and Open implementations of UEFI and PC BIOS as well as being able to boot Linux, Grub, and many other things directly. A board running Coreboot can boot just about anything much faster and more flexibly than any of the industry standard approaches.
OEM can use this to lock in to there video cards that can cost $100+ the price of other on line stores, hdd that cost the full price of a 1TB disk to just upgrade from 500gb to 1TB. Maybe even ram lock in so you can pay $60 to go from 2gb to 4gb. But for about $50 you can get good 8GB ram kits.
Yes, UEFI Secure Boot can be used for such anti-competitive tactics. I hope somebody tries something like that, since it will demonstrate to those who don't care about alternative operating systems how evil it is to lock users out of decisions about what to use with their own computers.
I think that sums it up pretty well. I am very happy to see this well-written document from the Linux Foundation which OEMs who are serious about interoperability can use. When an OEM says "we can't make our Windows 8 Logo machine boot Linux or anything other than Windows 8" this document can be used to easily refute such laziness.
Slashdot Mirror
HTML video elements can specify any number of sources AFAIK. Exploiting this will be essential for a long time I'm afraid. Standardized codecs won't be possible until the scourge of software patents has been vanquished, which won't happen in our lifetimes.
Yes, I think that's exactly why this is interesting. Increasingly, PCs have multiple video outputs of various types as well as multiple GPUs. If you can decouple the GPU used to render something from the output used to display it without a huge performance hit, that opens up all kinds of possibilities.
Does anyone know if this would this provide a performance boost over something like VNC for similar things? Or how about the possibility to pass rendered output as a fake video capture card input to a virtual machine? I think I get what this does, but I'm kind of wondering how exactly it's better than current solutions to these problems.
An obvious way to use this would be to target some kind of virtual frame buffer in regular RAM that VNC or other remote protocol could take advantage of. Currently, you have to point VNC to a real frame buffer that is displayed on a GPU's output to take advantage of the acceleration. However, if you switched the virtual frame buffer the GPU renders to, you could have acceleration for an arbitrary number of them as long as applications don't need to use acceleration features all the time.
PulseAudio works great for me and makes my life a lot easier, so it would be fine if it did.
It doesn't sound to me like this is that much like either PulseAudio or Jack. Those are both sound systems based on userspace daemons focused on flexible sound mixing, while this virtual graphics system is within the Linux kernel and seems to be focused on simply moving pixels from one hardware device to some other device.
Wayland is more like PulseAudio or Jack for graphics. Its proponents think it has advantages over the much thicker, more complex daemon we've used for decades called the X11 server.
Though your idea is interesting, I doubt it could benefit from the virtual graphics approach described in TFA. This is about rendering pixels to arbitrary outputs, while it sounds like you're talking about much higher level manipulation. There are already capable, programmable DSPs for advanced audio processing such as the EMU10k1 series from Creative and I expect you could use OpenCL or something like it to do sound processing on a GPU if desired.
Does that mean that Oracle is actually suing Google to be more open in their implementation rather than shut it down?
While I wouldn't put it that way, technically yes.
However, the real reason is Oracle wants Google to pay royalties to them like all phones that use JavaME do.
Oracle is not suing Google to make anything more open. They are suing Google for patent infringement in code Google has already released as Free and Open Source software. Oracle is attempting to use their patents to extort money out of Google. I'm sure they'll do the same to anyone else with enough cash for them to think it's worth it.
Thanks for the info.
Does copyleft mean that if you use something what you release has to also be open source and free? Does that mean that Oracle is actually suing Google to be more open in their implementation rather than shut it down?
Do we know why they won't open source the compliance tools? Does that effectively prevent other implementations of Java from existing? Do we know why Oracle wants that?
I forget that not everyone here is familiar with Free Software and Open Source licenses. Copyleft is "a general method for making a program (or other work) free, and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well." Since most of OpenJDK is under the GNU General Public License, the most common and best known Copyleft license, if you use any OpenJDK code as part of something which you release, it must also be released under the GPL. If you add some features to OpenJDK and release it, this applies, but it does not apply to Java programs complied by the OpenJDK compiler or Java bytecode running on the OpenJDK JVM.
In contrast, since the Apache Harmony project is under a permissive, non-Copyleft license, anyone is able to use it for any purpose, including using it in proprietary, non-Free software, which is what Google has done by using parts of it in Android.
Oracle does not want anything to be more open. I haven't been following their suit against Google closely, but I believe their claims are primarily about patent infringement. They have attempted to make some bogus copyright claims, but I think they've abandoned that by now since Google didn't use any of their code and doesn't seem to have violated anyone's copyright license. The patents Oracle is claiming Google violated are probably violated by anyone implementing Java whether they use OpenJDK, Harmony, or some unrelated implementation. Oracle seems to be saying, "as long as you use the implementation of Java we control, we probably won't sue you, but if you piss us off, all bets are off." Since patents covering software are independent of the implementation source code and language, this is potentially dangerous for anyone using Java and probably other languages.
Looking these planes up in Wikipedia isn't that hard. Try getting your story straight before correcting someone else with equally bad information.
First, the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle has been a very successful program which the Air Force certainly wanted. It will remain the USAF's most important air superiority fighter for many years since the F-22s intended to replace it turned out to be too expensive to be built in significant numbers.
Second, the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon is also a very successful fighter in service with numerous air forces in addition to the USAF. Because it's less expensive than the F-15, it could be manufactured in much greater numbers. The program which produced the F-16 met great resistance early on from F-15 proponents, who saw it as a threat to their program. However, a "high/low mix" doctrine would be developed and eventually allowed both programs to coexist peacefully. That same doctrine is partly what led to both the F-22 and F-35 programs, the F-22 being the "high" fighter and F-35 being the "low" one. Since the extremely high cost of the F-22 means that only 187 total are planned, the USAF will need a capable "low" fighter to replace its F-16s and probably some F-15s.
There are kernels of truth you that rant, but you seem very confused about the details of the aircraft. First, you're confusing the Republic F-105 Thunderchief, a figher bomber which entered service in 1958 with the General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark, which entered service in 1967.
Second, though the F-111 did have great development difficulty and a planned Navy interceptor version never materialized, it was a successful design overall. The F-111 was only suitable for ground attack roles despite its "F" designation, which seems to have been a product of the messy politics around its development. However, both the F-105 and F-111 were operated successfully by the USAF in ground attack missions, albeit with mixed reputations.
The Navy didn't get anything out of the F-111 project, but their following Grumman F-14 Tomcat did benefit from reusing parts of the F-111 program.
Third, you're confusing the USAF air superiority fighter McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle and the USN/USMC McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet.
The F-15 was developed later than the F-111 and was never considered an alternative to it. Rather, the F-15 was developed to replace the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II. Incidently, the F-4 was a successful fighter used by the USAF, USN, and USMC so the idea that one basic design can satisfy all services has some historical basis.
The F-35 is supposed to be more effective than each of the aircraft it's intended to replace, though I know some are skeptical that it will be an improvement over either the F-16 or A-10. Though it may turn out that building and maintaining F-35s is more expensive than maintaining the older models indefinitely, that's not a logical certainty. Some of the designs it's intended to replace aren't being made at all any more, so re-starting production could be a huge cost. It's often the case that newer equipment designs are inherently less expensive to maintain while being more effective though there unfortunately doesn't seem to be as much incentive for military contractors produce efficient designs as in the civilian markets. That's supposed to be the case for the F-35, but given its history so far, it's easy to be skeptical.
You never know, that small business in Luxemburg just might transform itself to the largest corporation in the world. I think Apple is just hedging it bets on this one.
Clearly, Apple is conscious of their own history. They started in a garage, were sued by the Beatles' Apple Corps, then agreed to not sell music. They were sued a couple of more times when they decided they did really want to sell music after all. Those who ascend to the top must always be paranoid about who will replace them.
I can't help but wonder if the repeated Apple Corps suits are what gave Apple Computer the idea to sell music. I'm sure it never occurred to the AppleADay people to sell consumer electronics, but it's certainly on their minds now.
First, this story is months old and dates back to late August. Second, contrary to the headline, they're not threatening over the "AppleADay" name but the logo.
Third, as is pointed out every time an incident like this occurs, trademark owners have to take no chances and must enforce perceived violations or risk losing their right to it. There is always the risk that a court somewhere in the world might cite the lack of action in some particular case. But, since it's a "David v. Goliath" article, as the summary put it, it's an excellent story to submit to Slashdot and rile up the natives.
Since the two logos only resemble each other to the extent that they both depict apples, why isn't Apple suing Fruit of the Loom or Vic Fruit. Using the same logic, Red Hat would have to sue Arby's to maintain their trademark.
"Steve's dead, we're fucked. Better double the staff in the legal department to protect our position while we figure out what the hell we're gunna do."
Yeah, Apple certainly never brought frivolous patent infringement lawsuits while Steve was in charge. This is really just business as usual.
It seems that IBM started Harmony to produce a complete, permissively licensed implementation of the Java specifications, while OpenJDK is Copyleft. A year ago, IBM shifted their support to OpenJDK, so there's no longer a major sponsor for Harmony. That, in addition to the fact that Apache is no longer participating in the Java Community Process seems to be the reason there's little development going on in Harmony.
The reason that Apache resigned from the Java Community Process Executive Committee is that the Java specifications are completely controlled by Oracle, which doesn't allow their compliance test tools to be used freely. Harmony will remain in a similar relationship with Java that Mono has to DotNet rather than being a first class implementation. The significant difference between Java and DotNet seems to be that Sun/Oracle have released most (all?) of the official implementation as Free Software, but the specifications that software implement are still proprietary.
The main beneficiary of Harmony seems to be Google, which is using some code from the project as part of Android, though Android was never intended to be a complete Java implementation. They've made it clear that they want to use only permissively-licensed code so that they can release it as proprietary software whenever they want. That's exactly what they did with Android 3. While I'm glad IBM is now supporting a Copyleft implementation rather than a permissively-licensed implementation, a mature programming language system needs alternative implementations to keep the spec-writers honest. Oracle's handling of the specification process continues to prevent Java's use as a completely open system.
Success in a Casino is about lack.
What exactly must I lack to win big in a casino? Seriously, the only way to consistently make money at a casino is by using skill. That's why casinos are always looking for the skillful players to kick them out. TFA is saying that luck plays a large role in the chance of success of an iApp, not that luck is the only thing that matters. Also similar to a casino is the fact that the house (Apple) always wins regardless of which app developers do.
What is definitely different about psychology is that experimentation on its subjects is far more difficult than most sciences. Psychologists can't generally keep their subjects in controlled environments or take them apart to see how they work. I'm sure a psychologist would tell you that observing and experimenting on members of one's own species, it is more difficult to remain objective than doing the same to lower animals or inanimate objects.
If we look to the teachings of Freud he did all this to bone his mother. Clearly.
Yeah, I'm sure Freud had lots of reliable data to back that up.
Coal or nuclear?
Not that I want to present a false dichotomy, but if you were "preference voting", i.e., listing your preferences in order, aside from the rest of the options, how would you order these two relative to one another?
Since coal and nuclear plants can vary quite a bit regarding chance of and magnitude of potential disasters, normal pollution raters and various other factors, I think you have to compare specific plant designs rather than simply lumping all coal and nuclear plants into two groups. We don't have any good way to replace all coal plants any time soon, but I think we need new, safe nuclear plants as well as more wind, hydroelectric, and solar plants to minimize the need for coal ones. The Fukushima disaster was terrible, but the experience gained from it can be used to avoid similar ones in the future.
How long are we going to be using the phrase "worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl"?
Obviously, that phrase will be used until a disaster worse than Chernobyl happens. I hope that phrase never goes out of style.
We suggest that one aspect of this adaptation is to encompass metadata within a file abstraction
this before? Are resource forks coming back into vogue?
A little known feature that NTFS has had for long time is support for multiple streams per file, not just two. Some Microsoft apps use that I think, but I doubt many third party ones do. I was more interested in Reiser's approach of being able to treat the same name as either a normal file or a directory containing more ordinary files of metadata. Unfortunately, the fact that he's a convicted murder and doesn't seem to get along that well with other people generally has limited the dissemination of his interesting ideas. I can't even seem to find copies of his essays about ideas for future work on Reiser4 that used to be available at namesys.com
On second thought... it is public domain that is obsolete by their wording... And that is truly disheartening.
I interpreted TMBG's response to mean that it's pointless for them to worry about their work falling into the public domain, which supports the idea that copyright is obsolete. I think they're implying that the fact that their works are under copyright has little to do with how much money they make from them.
i expect this to be one more thing i either loathe or disable as a sysadmin. UEFI, welcome to the hallowed esteems of DRAC, BMC, IPMI, ACPI, and APMI.
Thankfully, those can mostly be ignored except ACPI. EFI in general certainly seems similar to ACPI in that it attempts to solve shortcomings of older systems in an unnecessarily complex way and is therefore doomed to be implemented incompletely and incorrectly. We certainly need something to replace the PC BIOS, but I'm not sure we need EFI. It would be awesome if all motherboard manufacturers and OEMs made Coreboot work on their systems. It can have payloads of Free and Open implementations of UEFI and PC BIOS as well as being able to boot Linux, Grub, and many other things directly. A board running Coreboot can boot just about anything much faster and more flexibly than any of the industry standard approaches.
OEM can use this to lock in to there video cards that can cost $100+ the price of other on line stores, hdd that cost the full price of a 1TB disk to just upgrade from 500gb to 1TB. Maybe even ram lock in so you can pay $60 to go from 2gb to 4gb. But for about $50 you can get good 8GB ram kits.
Yes, UEFI Secure Boot can be used for such anti-competitive tactics. I hope somebody tries something like that, since it will demonstrate to those who don't care about alternative operating systems how evil it is to lock users out of decisions about what to use with their own computers.
I think that sums it up pretty well. I am very happy to see this well-written document from the Linux Foundation which OEMs who are serious about interoperability can use. When an OEM says "we can't make our Windows 8 Logo machine boot Linux or anything other than Windows 8" this document can be used to easily refute such laziness.