If that happens then we'll go single-payer and move the insurance companies into a "value-add" position. And then we can probably actually work to reduce costs.
UEFI is full of Wintel-isms, and Microsoft is right along Intel at the top of the stack in terms of people making design decisions with respect to how UEFI functions. Microsoft has shown it is willing to abuse its position (or the positions of others) in consortiums and standards bodies to get their way (see the OOXML debacle.)
I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest to find out that they leveraged their position to muck up the key management process in UEFI explicitly so that it functions the way we currently see- a way that advantages Microsoft directly due to their position in the market.
I used to like OS X. It's still the best *nix desktop out there, and no Linux DE can compare.
I walked away from it back when Apple decided to go full asshole with their mobile platforms. It ran against everything I chose OS X for, purely for the purposes of control over their users and vendors. The extremely coarse controls being imposed on the desktop via Gatekeeper don't help things going forward. So if you're interested in free software, open source, and the ability to leverage your system as you see fit, you're somewhat forced to go down a less comfortable, smoothly designed path.
I might consider going back, but not until Apple gets off the control freak kick.
Now that Microsoft has thrown sand in the face of their OEMs, perhaps the OEMs won't be so afraid of pursuing and investing in non-Microsoft operating systems. Microsoft may have a legacy, but much of that legacy could be emulated or relegated to VMs if necessary. And here's a perfect example of such an opportunity.
If anything, now's the time to do it as Microsoft won't be able to punish the OEMs without being blatantly anti-competitive. And it'd breathe some life into the stagnant PC space.
Remember the article about AMD adopting ARM's TrustZone? You can guarantee that TrustZone is being used to check the signature of the UEFI image on the platform and ensure that it's unmodified from the one the hardware vendor installed.
It's the same feature used by all the Android vendors to enforce boot loader lock down on random devices. You can try to weasel around and bypass it, but you sure as hell aren't going to modify it.
How is it that a bunch of vendors who are basically bound to a single, anti-competitive OS vendor who has shown a propensity for progressing only at a rate they approve of, and only so far as it keeps them on top, are supposed to create something incredibly "innovative?"
At this point, the hardware vendors deserve what they get.
Yeah, they went with Microsoft. Not that they really had any options.
Blaming Microsoft for being a "bad partner" stretches credibility to the breaking point.
Even when they've threatened vendors for daring to draw attention away from Windows? Microsoft has always been a bad partner, because the sole goal for any Microsoft partnership is to benefit Microsoft at any cost to the "partner."
So that means if my bootcd's that I create or the ones that I have like Hiren's boot cd, bartpe or any other won't work anymore if its not signed by MS ? That means the IT world will get a kick in the balls with this... like Hiren's will pay for the key
That's why Microsoft is making their "Windows-2-Go" option available to enterprise licensees. Obviously only enterprise IT users would ever need such a feature.
Microsoft made it clear that arm computers which is loaded with windows 8 will make it impossible to disable the UEFI.
UEFI fundamentally replaces the BIOS, and has on pretty much every motherboard released for the past year and a half or so. They have mandated, however, that it be possible to disable secure boot on x86 systems.
Please, please pay attention when commenting. I hate the stupid games Microsoft pulls in the name of "security" but at least be somewhat knowledgeable before posting something for all to see.
Nokia did it too. They wanted to create their own thing... what? Twice?
The irony is that they went full standard Linux, rather than Google's almost completely independent source base. Maemo, MeeGo, Meltemi, all had far more in common with common Linux distributions than Android.
Going Android basically makes you dependent on Google, and no one really wants that. Nokia, for what it's worth, effectively got taken over from the inside.
No, they leveraged the "Secure" part of "Secure Digital" cards and had issues with some cards that weren't fully compliant since no one else really implemented the secure half. They need it for DRM, after all, and have probably come up with a workaround for it.
Except most consumers hated all the incompatible choices.
Really? You know this for a fact?
The average computer user was quite happy to see the useless divergent choices killed off.
The average computer user never had the option of using the other choices. Microsoft made sure they were dead and gone from the desktop before Windows ME hit.
Diversity, you know. Choice. Something that's been missing from the market since Microsoft killed off virtually all of their competitors and established their monopoly.
Why can't the world of Smart Phones agree on one compatibility standard, and then everything runs fine on every device?
Well, that's what HTML5 is for, supposedly. Doesn't mean you're going to get any performance out of it though, which limits its use case. Theoretically that's the problem Java was supposed to solve, but it doesn't really seem to have panned out.
I dont mind a walled garden, as I would rather not have a device that can be infected with Adware/Trojans/Viruses!
Given that iOS is not immune to remote exploits (c.f. Jailbreakme) you are not immune to those problems. The 3 things you fear so greatly that you are willing to submit to Apple's authority are resolved by having applications vetted in the store. Anything else falls on you, and if you don't feel you can trust yourself to not install SuperSexySwimsuitApplication.app, then you shouldn't install anything not in the store.
It does not follow that no one else should be prevented from installing whatever they want from wherever they want, but Apple and Microsoft do so and it is exclusively to their own benefit.
I could be wrong, but everything I'm seeing online seems to agree.
Only for Win32 software. Metro apps are inside a walled garden and much like iOS, local "side loading" is only allowed for developers. No distribution of software to others is possible outside the store (unless you wanna ensure your software is only ever used by developers.)
Windows RT is restricted by Win32 being completely unavailable to anyone but Microsoft.
* Metro software cannot be acquired from any source but the Microsoft Store. * Software cannot enter the Microsoft Store unless it is Metro.
Microsoft has Metro locked up from both ends, just like iOS.
They aren't even remotely the same thing.
Correct. I have long said that Google should be as anal as Apple with respect to vetting software that enters their store, and that'd be perfectly fine so long as the handsets don't enforce the store as a sole source.
No, it's a mutual incompatibility between the App Store and the GPL. Apple chose to make it this way.
The App Store (and by extension, Apple's walled garden) is decisively anti-end user freedom. The GPL is totally pro-end user freedom. But since Apple controls the store, the only way to legitimately get GPL software on there is to own all the copyrights to the code, strip the GPL (because it will be replaced with Apple's onerous terms,) and post it. Users can then go figure out how to make use of the GPL code with a platform that is outright hostile to them.
doubt about what Microsoft MIGHT do to lock-out devices.
Might do? You mean like mandate 3rd parties enforce UEFI Secure Boot to ensure nothing can modify the boot process? You knock out malware and alternative operating systems (arguably malware from Microsoft's perspective) in one blow.
Free software won't completely go away, of course. There's too much back-end functionality in too many IT sectors for that to ever happen.
No, but you'll be pushed down the path of buying a multi-thousand dollar server of some sort.
But with the rise of thin clients and the app store gateways, end users may have a harder time finding and installing free software for their personal or business use.
Which is precisely what Microsoft and Apple would prefer. No access to Free Software because your platform vendor has decided for you what software you will and will not be able to use. And those decisions will be made exclusively to their own benefit.
Look up the taxi cartels in any major city for a great example that's easy to understand. If you want to get more specific, look at Nashville TN and the recently passed law setting rate limits on sedan and limo services. Not only are they blocking entry to the market, they're actively trying to destroy a particular business that I have used in the past.
Ok, so you might have found an example of a good regulation to cut. Of course, you're going to have to fight against the corporations who want the regulations to begin with, so good luck with that. Making government smaller probably wouldn't help, since the cartel would probably just use other means to enforce its power.
I can come up with other examples in other industries if you'd like, but I'm guessing that you'll attempt to move the goalposts and claim you still got a touchdown....
Of course, I never actually moved the goalposts. I simply pointed out that SuperKendall was reiterating his empty bullshit a second time and wanted him to cough up something to back up his statements. He never did and I suspect he can't.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, I have never dual booted. But instead, I give Linux full hardware instead of suggesting that "put Linux in a VM, run Windows" is a solution.
For non-EFI PCs, PCs with EFI that don't support secure boot, or PCs with secure boot turned off.
I know you're an AC, but your claim is completely unprovable. It can be readily disproven, though.
No, what we should do is go single payer and push to eliminate the profit-motive of the insurance companies that help drive up costs.
If that happens then we'll go single-payer and move the insurance companies into a "value-add" position. And then we can probably actually work to reduce costs.
So basically, it'd be a disaster with a non-functional economy where no one would dare take risks?
UEFI is full of Wintel-isms, and Microsoft is right along Intel at the top of the stack in terms of people making design decisions with respect to how UEFI functions. Microsoft has shown it is willing to abuse its position (or the positions of others) in consortiums and standards bodies to get their way (see the OOXML debacle.)
I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest to find out that they leveraged their position to muck up the key management process in UEFI explicitly so that it functions the way we currently see- a way that advantages Microsoft directly due to their position in the market.
I used to like OS X. It's still the best *nix desktop out there, and no Linux DE can compare.
I walked away from it back when Apple decided to go full asshole with their mobile platforms. It ran against everything I chose OS X for, purely for the purposes of control over their users and vendors. The extremely coarse controls being imposed on the desktop via Gatekeeper don't help things going forward. So if you're interested in free software, open source, and the ability to leverage your system as you see fit, you're somewhat forced to go down a less comfortable, smoothly designed path.
I might consider going back, but not until Apple gets off the control freak kick.
Now that Microsoft has thrown sand in the face of their OEMs, perhaps the OEMs won't be so afraid of pursuing and investing in non-Microsoft operating systems. Microsoft may have a legacy, but much of that legacy could be emulated or relegated to VMs if necessary. And here's a perfect example of such an opportunity.
If anything, now's the time to do it as Microsoft won't be able to punish the OEMs without being blatantly anti-competitive. And it'd breathe some life into the stagnant PC space.
Yes, because the right response to obtuse security measures is to step back a decade in compute power. The Pi is a nice toy, but seriously...
Wouldn't help.
Remember the article about AMD adopting ARM's TrustZone? You can guarantee that TrustZone is being used to check the signature of the UEFI image on the platform and ensure that it's unmodified from the one the hardware vendor installed.
It's the same feature used by all the Android vendors to enforce boot loader lock down on random devices. You can try to weasel around and bypass it, but you sure as hell aren't going to modify it.
How is it that a bunch of vendors who are basically bound to a single, anti-competitive OS vendor who has shown a propensity for progressing only at a rate they approve of, and only so far as it keeps them on top, are supposed to create something incredibly "innovative?"
Yeah, they went with Microsoft. Not that they really had any options.
Even when they've threatened vendors for daring to draw attention away from Windows? Microsoft has always been a bad partner, because the sole goal for any Microsoft partnership is to benefit Microsoft at any cost to the "partner."
That's why Microsoft is making their "Windows-2-Go" option available to enterprise licensees. Obviously only enterprise IT users would ever need such a feature.
UEFI fundamentally replaces the BIOS, and has on pretty much every motherboard released for the past year and a half or so. They have mandated, however, that it be possible to disable secure boot on x86 systems.
Please, please pay attention when commenting. I hate the stupid games Microsoft pulls in the name of "security" but at least be somewhat knowledgeable before posting something for all to see.
The irony is that they went full standard Linux, rather than Google's almost completely independent source base. Maemo, MeeGo, Meltemi, all had far more in common with common Linux distributions than Android.
Going Android basically makes you dependent on Google, and no one really wants that. Nokia, for what it's worth, effectively got taken over from the inside.
No, they leveraged the "Secure" part of "Secure Digital" cards and had issues with some cards that weren't fully compliant since no one else really implemented the secure half. They need it for DRM, after all, and have probably come up with a workaround for it.
Really? You know this for a fact?
The average computer user never had the option of using the other choices. Microsoft made sure they were dead and gone from the desktop before Windows ME hit.
Diversity, you know. Choice. Something that's been missing from the market since Microsoft killed off virtually all of their competitors and established their monopoly.
Well, that's what HTML5 is for, supposedly. Doesn't mean you're going to get any performance out of it though, which limits its use case. Theoretically that's the problem Java was supposed to solve, but it doesn't really seem to have panned out.
Given that iOS is not immune to remote exploits (c.f. Jailbreakme) you are not immune to those problems. The 3 things you fear so greatly that you are willing to submit to Apple's authority are resolved by having applications vetted in the store. Anything else falls on you, and if you don't feel you can trust yourself to not install SuperSexySwimsuitApplication.app, then you shouldn't install anything not in the store.
It does not follow that no one else should be prevented from installing whatever they want from wherever they want, but Apple and Microsoft do so and it is exclusively to their own benefit.
Not everyone shoud need to be a developer just to avoid a store. Ramming a store down people's throat benefits only the store owner.
Only for Win32 software. Metro apps are inside a walled garden and much like iOS, local "side loading" is only allowed for developers. No distribution of software to others is possible outside the store (unless you wanna ensure your software is only ever used by developers.)
Windows RT is restricted by Win32 being completely unavailable to anyone but Microsoft.
They're both locked.
* Metro software cannot be acquired from any source but the Microsoft Store.
* Software cannot enter the Microsoft Store unless it is Metro.
Microsoft has Metro locked up from both ends, just like iOS.
Correct. I have long said that Google should be as anal as Apple with respect to vetting software that enters their store, and that'd be perfectly fine so long as the handsets don't enforce the store as a sole source.
No, it's a mutual incompatibility between the App Store and the GPL. Apple chose to make it this way.
The App Store (and by extension, Apple's walled garden) is decisively anti-end user freedom. The GPL is totally pro-end user freedom. But since Apple controls the store, the only way to legitimately get GPL software on there is to own all the copyrights to the code, strip the GPL (because it will be replaced with Apple's onerous terms,) and post it. Users can then go figure out how to make use of the GPL code with a platform that is outright hostile to them.
Metro is 100% locked, regardless of CPU architecture. Microsoft wants all future development to take place using Metro, and it isn't hard to see why.
Might do? You mean like mandate 3rd parties enforce UEFI Secure Boot to ensure nothing can modify the boot process? You knock out malware and alternative operating systems (arguably malware from Microsoft's perspective) in one blow.
No, but you'll be pushed down the path of buying a multi-thousand dollar server of some sort.
Which is precisely what Microsoft and Apple would prefer. No access to Free Software because your platform vendor has decided for you what software you will and will not be able to use. And those decisions will be made exclusively to their own benefit.
Ok, so you might have found an example of a good regulation to cut. Of course, you're going to have to fight against the corporations who want the regulations to begin with, so good luck with that. Making government smaller probably wouldn't help, since the cartel would probably just use other means to enforce its power.
Of course, I never actually moved the goalposts. I simply pointed out that SuperKendall was reiterating his empty bullshit a second time and wanted him to cough up something to back up his statements. He never did and I suspect he can't.