Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security Linux

Will Secure Boot Cripple Linux Compatibility? 545

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the security-through-totalitarianism dept.
MojoMax writes "The advent of Windows 8 is drawing ever nearer and recently we have learned that ARM devices installed with Windows 8 will not be able to disable the UEFI secure boot feature that many of us are deeply concerned about. However, UEFI is still a very real danger to Linux and the freedom to use whichever OS you chose. Regardless of information for OEMs to enable customers to install their own keys, such as that published by the Linux Foundation, there are still very serious and as yet unresolved issues with using secure boot and Linux. These issues are best summarized quoting Matthew Garrett: 'Signing the kernel isn't enough. Signed Linux kernels must refuse to load any unsigned kernel modules. Virtualbox on Linux? Dead. Nvidia binary driver on Linux? Dead. All out of tree kernel modules? Utterly, utterly dead. Building an updated driver locally? Not going to happen. That's going to make some people fairly unhappy.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Will Secure Boot Cripple Linux Compatibility?

Comments Filter:
  • Simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NeoTron (6020) <[ten.sredilgyracs] [ta] [nivek]> on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @07:19PM (#38742690) Homepage
    Don't purchase any of these ARM powered devices which run Windows 8.
  • Re:"Freedom" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hedwards (940851) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @07:21PM (#38742718)

    Tablets won't be able to be fully certified by MS if they don't have secure boot enabled with no way of disabling it. There may be some manufacturers that opt to have a second line for Linux, but I doubt that will be very common. The problem is one of logistics it's not that much cheaper to have a second line that supports Linux, you have to support it and QA it. But, if you just ship hardware that's supported by Linux then you lose no money on that and sell more units. Of course MS is the party here that's misbehaving.

    The issue is that ultimately, they're selling these devices that can't have other OSes installed without cracking them, that's inherently a freedom issue.

  • by exomondo (1725132) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @07:22PM (#38742728)
    It seems to me this only affects a subset of devices that don't even yet exist. If what you want to do is run linux with virtual box and other assorted unsigned kernel modules then why would you be buying a 'Designed for Windows 8' ARM device? You wouldn't, just like you wouldn't buy an iPad to do those things. You would buy an x86 device, or an Android device, or an ARM device that is not 'Designed for Windows 8'.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @07:27PM (#38742758)

    I don't think /. comprises that much of the tablet market.

  • Re:"Freedom" (Score:2, Insightful)

    by forkfail (228161) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @07:27PM (#38742768)

    The fundamental problem is that the relative market share is such that a whole lot of OEM's won't bother with non-Microsoft hardware. Given Microsoft's market share, they won't see adequate money in it (there would be money, just not enough). Add in Microsoft's perpensity to bully and persuade OEM's, the hardware just won't be there for the most part.

    And this still doesn't address the problem of not really owning your hardware, which is what this change does. You will be absolutely limited in what software your hardware can run.

  • Re:"Freedom" (Score:2, Insightful)

    by exomondo (1725132) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @07:29PM (#38742790)

    The issue is that ultimately, they're selling these devices that can't have other OSes installed without cracking them, that's inherently a freedom issue.

    So is Apple, but more to the point nothing is stopping Linux tablets from coming to market, in fact there are lots of them out there now. If you buy a 'Designed for Windows 8' device it's no different than buying an iPad with regard to the operating system. I doubt there are many people out there who bought an iPad and are complaining that they can't install Linux on it (me included), so why should it be any different for these 'Designed for Windows 8' devices?

  • by ClintJCL (264898) <clintjcl+slashdot@gmai l . c om> on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @07:33PM (#38742836) Homepage Journal
    Myopic.

    Reminds me of when drug testing started to take hold in the 1970s - "If you don't want to drug test, you can choose to work at a job where you don't." Except generally, assholism comes with built-in scope creep. Now you can't get a job at Home Depot pushing carts without having machines inspect your personal fluids to determine your off-work behavior. The simply "if you don't like X, then go elsewhere" so-called 'solution' is a fallacy, and always has been. It's a way to avoid a problem; it does not fix anything, or prevent a problem from getting worse.

    Another great example - "Don't like crime in this city? Move to another city." Or "Don't like the shitty laws here? Move to another country." {And when the countries of the world unite to form a cartel of shitty laws worldwide -- for instance ACTA -- they will be far harder to fight.}

  • by exomondo (1725132) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @07:37PM (#38742862)
    Except that it's not like that at all, you don't buy a hammer if what you need is a screwdriver, just like you don't buy a device specifically designed for an operating system if you want to run a different operating system, you choose a different device. What sort of entitlement complex do you have when you get to the point of thinking companies have to build devices that are everything to everyone?
  • Re:"Freedom" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by viperidaenz (2515578) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @07:40PM (#38742884)
    Microsofts market share? Tell me, what is their huge share in the ARM powered PC/tablet market?
  • Re:"Freedom" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by pclminion (145572) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @07:42PM (#38742898)

    I don't see why Microsoft, the owner of the Windows trademark, cannot impose whatever rules it wants to on manufacturers who want to put the Windows logo on their products. This was a big deal in the 90's because Microsoft already had huge platform lock-in, so it was unfeasible to ship a product that wasn't Windows-certified. But on ARM? There's no Windows ARM software available, no multi-decade legacy of crap following behind it, so where is the lock-in? The Windows logo no longer indicates a platform advantage, it merely indicates you passed Microsoft's tests.

    A manufacturer can still make an ARM device that runs Windows and allow Linux as well -- they just can't put the Windows logo on it.

    The problem is stupid consumers who demand to see that logo.

  • by Calibax (151875) * on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @07:43PM (#38742912)

    Right now, the ARM architecture equates to tablets and phones for many, maybe most people.

    However, a number of companies (Qualcomm, NVIDIA, and others) have announced that they are developing ARM processors to challenge Intel in laptops and desktop systems. Probably they are going with ARM because Intel is being somewhat uncooperative (and maybe anticompetitive) by not letting them have licenses that would allow them to produce x86 compatible systems.

    For these companies, having Windows on their ARM systems is vital. However, we shouldn't be short-sighted - restricting the ability for ARM systems to boot anything but Windows will (in the long run) benefit Intel, AMD, Via, etc. as much as it will benefit Microsoft by restricting which operating systems the upcoming ARM based systems can boot. They will either run Windows or they will run everything else, depending on the boot ROM in the system. Guess which most will chose.

  • Re:"Freedom" (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Darinbob (1142669) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @07:47PM (#38742954)

    It's a freedom argument. If I purchase a device then it is MINE. I should be able to control it, take it apart, paint it a different color, give it to my kids, etc. And this freedom means I should be able to put my own software on it without permission from some bozos in Redmond.

    Pre-installed Linux is only halfway there. It means I can't change the linux if I want to, or put on BSD, etc. Stop treating these devices like stupid consumer gadgets. Ok, they probably are going to be just that in practice, but that doesn't mean they should be forbidden to be more than hipster jewelry.

  • Re:"Freedom" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Darinbob (1142669) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @07:50PM (#38742994)

    Because when you buy a device you should be allowed to modify it. It is your private property at that point. It doesn't matter how many stupid people only use them to show off to friends, if even one single person in the entire world wants to be able to modify their personal property in a way that causes no harm to others then it is their right to do so.

  • Re:"Freedom" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sir_Sri (199544) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @07:51PM (#38743004)

    Other way around. These are linux (andriod) tablet makers being paid by MS to make a Windows version. Just like phones, these will be samsung galaxy tabs, acer iconias etc. with a minor refresh/rebrand to run windows. Not windows tablets being done the other way around.

    The gadget market is very different from the desktop market anyway. Right now it's an iPad market, with some other hangers on. Whether MS can change that is an open question, but it's not like you can put linux on your iPad, and it has 90% of the market right now.

  • by ClintJCL (264898) <clintjcl+slashdot@gmai l . c om> on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @07:52PM (#38743024) Homepage Journal
    The same entitlement complex that those who enforce anti-trust laws have.

    Also, whoosh. My point went over your head based on your metaphor that does not represent the situation at all.

    A more apt metaphor would be: What if new devices started using proprietary screwdriver bits? Maybe they get a kickback from the screwdriver bit industry, or manufacture the bits themselves to pad their profit (remember the outrage when the iPhone changed its screws?). The "if you don't want that tool, buy another tool" metaphor simply does not work. You cannot use their tool because they have changed it to be less adaptable. People can buy phillips and flathead screwed devices 'til the cow comes home, but there's enough mindless consumers and people that it would not change the bottom line enough for $CORPORATION to change their ways. After another company sees the money they make, they start using proprietary screws too. Eventually, it becomes an industry trend. You can either shell out for the proprietary screwdriver, or use none of these devices. Either way, your unwillingness to go with a bullshit 'feature' does nothing to stop that bullshit from creeping into every device in existence; you merely stuck your head in the sand.

    YOU actually come off as the entitled one here, except that you feel entitlement for the faceless corporations that are only interested in your money, rather than for yourself and your own freedom of market choice. You somehow feel that if they were forced to offer something that costs the same to make, but allows people greater freedom, that somehow this affects your livelihood or your "feelings" on what a corporation should be allowed to do. Unless you're a CEO yourself, you're simply loving to learn the taste of the boots you lick. In fact, simply boycotting a product does not make its shitty features go away. And corporations were originally only allowed to continue existing if they served the public good; otherwise they died a mandatory, automatic death sentence. (That is, before those same corporations and their cronies re-wrote the law so that they have more rights than actual people. Privatize profits, socialize losses, no death penalty if you're a corp, and if you're a CEO you can kill someone and not go to jail because you're deemed more important than others.)

    I mean, imagine someone saying "if you don't like the fact that airbags can decapitate your baby, then don't get a car with airbags". Do you think that stopped them from coming? Now I am in danger of responding to your bad metaphor with another metaphor, but my point -- which still stands -- is that simply avoiding something you don't like does not make it go away.

    It's not a "simple solution". It is neither simple, nor a solution. It is not simple to reduce your freedom of choice, and it is not a solution in any way, shape, or form. A solution solves a problem. The problem still exists. You've done nothing.

    "Don't like wars over oil? Then don't buy gas!"

    "Don't like abortions? Then don't have one!" (This is a trick example, as I *love* abortions. But to someone who thinks abortions represent a problem {which is not me} -- this 'solution' does not actually solve the 'problem'.)

    "Don't like the encroachment of civil liberties in the name of the drug war? Then don't do drugs (alternate: move to another country)."

    "Don't like cops tasering people? Then don't mouth off to cops!"

    Anyone who thinks this attitude constitutes a solution has a major cognitive logic defect.

  • by Zero__Kelvin (151819) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @07:57PM (#38743080) Homepage
    You are comparing Apples(tm) and Windows(tm). What OS does Apple sell? What computer models does Microsoft sell? See the difference?
  • by Joe_Dragon (2206452) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @07:58PM (#38743090)

    knoppix and other testing / recovery tools also need secure boot.

    Does networking booting work with secure boot?

    Ghost?

    Hard Drive Diagnostics tools (self booting ones)

    Dell Diagnostics tools (self booting ones)?

    Acronis True Image

    clonezilla?

    Memtest86+ (better and more to the hardware then the windows memory test tool)

    There is alot of stuff some still dos based that is need out side of windows.

  • Re:"Freedom" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Microlith (54737) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @08:02PM (#38743144)

    And they only have to lock it down if it's 'Designed for Windows 8'

    Everything will be "Designed for Windows 8" if it runs Windows.

    and if it's ARM, if they don't put on that Windows 8 sticker then they don't have to do anything.

    And Microsoft also doesn't have to sell them licenses they can put on devices that don't meet the guidelines.

    And i'm sure Google will just rest on their laurels and just let Android die.

    Google may continue to fight but all MS has to do is hinder and slow it.

    if you didn't want Windows 8 you wouldn't buy a device designed for it, unless of course you're an idiot.

    Go find me a motherboard or graphics card that don't have the logo. Go on, do it. I doubt you can.

    What the hell. Not a few years ago restrictions like this were acknowledged as being bad. Now people can't rush fast enough to defend lock down like this, especially with Microsoft pushing it.

  • by Zero__Kelvin (151819) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @08:04PM (#38743174) Homepage

    "Except that it's not like that at all, you don't buy a hammer if what you need is a screwdriver ..."

    You buy a screwdriver and use the handle to pound in nails when they stop making hammers because Microsoft uses their monopoly to drive hammer makers out of the market.

  • Re:"Freedom" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sjames (1099) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @08:08PM (#38743220) Homepage

    Of course you're free to take a walk in your own front yard, just watch out for the tiger pits we put in. And the bear traps. OH, and the unmarked minefield. But we have done absolutely nothing to stop you from taking a nice walk in your own front yard.

  • Re:"Freedom" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Microlith (54737) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @08:10PM (#38743236)

    The Windows logo no longer indicates a platform advantage

    Sorry, no. It's a HUGE platform advantage, because they can place the same logo on tablets and desktops. The catch with the Windows 8 tablet is the software is available only via the store. This is great for Microsoft, because they can say "buy the software for Windows 8 on our store, and you can use it on both your desktop and tablet!"

    So they link the desktop monopoly to the tablet space, and leverage it to extend their reach into another.

    A manufacturer can still make an ARM device that runs Windows and allow Linux as well -- they just can't put the Windows logo on it.

    Can they? I deeply suspect that Microsoft will make OEMs agree that any and all tablets running Windows will meet the logo requirements, or they won't get the OEM agreement they want (IE no Windows for your tablets.)

    The problem is stupid consumers who demand to see that logo.

    And that's exactly what Microsoft is banking on. Oh and finding some way to drive Android out of the market.

  • by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968&gmail,com> on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @08:11PM (#38743250) Journal

    Don't feel bad bonch, I got accused of shilling for saying IE is shit. I still haven't figured out how saying something is shit is a positive endorsement for it, maybe its rapper lingo or something, hell if I know.

    As for TFA watch how quickly i get modded down by FOSS zealots and their giant perceptual bubble, ready? Hey FOSSies, its just MSFT copying Apple again, so quit getting your panties in a wad, okay? you can't put anything on an iPad but iOS and this is THE EXACT SAME DEAL. There will be NO CHANGE when it comes to X86, in fact part of the "designed for Windows 8" specs state that they MUST allow the secure boot to be disabled, the only place its different is the ARM chips which as many have pointed out will probably be heavily subsidized by MSFT who don't want "Hey turn that $299 Windows 8 tablet into a $500 Android tablet!" posts all over the net 3 weeks after it comes out.

    And I know this will piss you off, get ready for it....DON'T BUY IT...is that REALLY so hard? why the hell is it any business of yours what MSFT does with chips they contracted out for, or with OEMs they are paying to build their designs? it isn't like you don't have more choices than EVER before, you've got Apple, Google, RIM,, there is X86/64, ARM,MIPS, hell you got choices coming out your asses, so WTF are you bitching for? Vote with your wallet okay? But just because YOU don't like doesn't mean you get to tell ME or anyone else what device we should buy or what features it should have. If I was gonna buy one of these things, which I'm not BTW, I wanna try one of those $70 Android Indian pads the net has been buzzing about, but if I did and was actually gonna use this for real work I'd WANT it locked down, because if its one thing we've seen its that these things are giant targets for the malware guys! look at Android it seems like every other day we are reading of some exploit.

    But in the end you have not a damned thing to bitch about in mobile. Android is switching between first and second place constantly, there are a bazillion different hacked droid ROMs out there you can play with, life is good man so why get your panties in a wad for a device you would NEVER buy in a million years anyway? And if you are buying Windows devices to get the trialware price breaks and then loading Linux YOU are a damned hypocrite and part of the problem, as there are many guys like System76 busting their asses trying to support you and if you don't buy from them and support Linux then you're just being assholes and have NO right to complain about the numbers showing Windows share being so high because you are part of those numbers!

    But now you have no excuses, you can buy damned near any device you want running Linux, so vote with your wallet and let everyone else vote with theirs, okay? if the world likes what you have it'll win, if not then that simply means you aren't listening to the people and giving them what they want, simple as that. But bitching about Win 8 ARM not letting you boot Linux when most of you wouldn't piss on a Win 8 anything is just bitching for the sake of being a bitch and more than a little pointless, okay? Nobody is taking anything "away" from you if you would have never bought it in the first place, and ARM chips are about as different from x86 as night is to day, with ARM everything is custom chips whereas x86 will run any old thing. If you want freedom? you've got the droid, have fun, I'll be joining you when those $70 Droid tablets hit just for shits and giggles. But when MSFT is paying for a device let them design it however they wish.

  • Re:"Freedom" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by exomondo (1725132) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @08:12PM (#38743254)

    Everything will be "Designed for Windows 8" if it runs Windows.

    No it won't.

    And Microsoft also doesn't have to sell them licenses they can put on devices that don't meet the guidelines.

    Citation? They don't have to give them discounts, but then the manufacturers don't have to sell them with Windows either, they could sell them with Linux.

    Google may continue to fight but all MS has to do is hinder and slow it.

    Hinder and slow it? Android dominates MS in the tablet market as it is. And of course Google or Apple couldn't do the same to MS.

    Go find me a motherboard or graphics card that don't have the logo. Go on, do it. I doubt you can.

    Why? The tablet market is already saturated with devices that don't have the Windows logo.

    What the hell. Not a few years ago restrictions like this were acknowledged as being bad. Now people can't rush fast enough to defend lock down like this, especially with Microsoft pushing it.

    Yeah look at how the ipad has destroyed the world with its lockdown.

  • Re:"Freedom" (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Microlith (54737) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @08:17PM (#38743350)

    It's hard enough that no one outside of people with access to high end rework labs and the ability to repair damaged PCBs and reball SoCs is going to be able to do it. So claiming that "it's possible" with that degree of difficulty and barrier to entry is at best a sad, sad joke.

  • Re:"Freedom" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hedwards (940851) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @08:18PM (#38743356)

    There is no requirement that you dominate the market to be guilty of antitrust violations. Agreements between companies to lock out other companies to this extent are going to be in violation of antitrust regulations. This isn't just an exclusivity agreement between the companies, this is an exclusivity agreement that also involves the end user and prevents access to the device by other companies.

    If MS contracted them to build the devices that would be a completely different situation. That's well established and Apple, for one, has been doing that for decades. What isn't well established is the practice of withholding certification if the product is capable of running a competitors product.

  • Re:"Freedom" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Microlith (54737) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @08:22PM (#38743392)

    No it won't.

    Do you seriously think that MS is going to let a vendor ship Windows on a device without their logo on it? Doubtful.

    the manufacturers don't have to sell them with Windows either, they could sell them with Linux.

    We've said that with PCs as well. Look where that went.

    Hinder and slow it? Android dominates MS in the tablet market as it is.

    Yeah, which is precisely why Microsoft is doing their little patent protection racket against every Android vendor in the market. They want to weaken Android and raise the cost of using it so that the vendors give up.

    The tablet market is already saturated with devices that don't have the Windows logo.

    Go do it. I asked you to go find me core system hardware that doesn't have the Windows logo on it.

    Yeah look at how the ipad has destroyed the world with its lockdown

    Sure, it's causing bullshit lock down and walled gardens to spread.

  • MUST is overrated (Score:4, Insightful)

    by WaffleMonster (969671) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @09:03PM (#38743820)

    I've been known to piss on requirements in specifications from time to time because they subvert my interests or they have effects I believe to be more harmful than helpful.

    All secure boot does is give the computer some assurance whatever it is handing off control to can be trusted.

    There is no technical way for UEFI or anything else to enforce signed drivers in the form of modules loaded dynamically at runtime. If the kernel is blessed by the computer these "requirements" are simply empty words on a page that can and will be ignored with impunity.

  • by Microlith (54737) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @09:13PM (#38743904)

    Hey FOSSies, its just MSFT copying Apple again, so quit getting your panties in a wad, okay?

    Yup, we should just STFU and let the two biggest companies in consumer computing shut down all but each other as options in the market.

    There will be NO CHANGE when it comes to X86, in fact part of the "designed for Windows 8" specs state that they MUST allow the secure boot to be disabled

    But none of how that works is defined, so chances are each vendor will have a different way of doing it and when that happens, the likelihood of automating the process goes way down (if it was ever possible) and the barriers to entry go way, way up.

    heavily subsidized by MSFT who don't want "Hey turn that $299 Windows 8 tablet into a $500 Android tablet!" posts all over the net 3 weeks after it comes out.

    Of course not. They want to undercut Android and drive it out of the market. Prices will probably jump back up (but the security won't be relaxed) if they succeed.

    And I know this will piss you off, get ready for it....DON'T BUY IT...is that REALLY so hard?

    If Microsoft succeeds in their obvious goal of eliminating all other choices aside from Apple, nope, it won't be. Because there will be no choice.

    so WTF are you bitching for?

    Because a company with a powerful monopoly known for acting in anti-competitive manners is establishing requirements that make it extremely difficult, and in some cases impossible, for alternative software platforms to be used on these devices.

    if I did and was actually gonna use this for real work I'd WANT it locked down

    Sure, sure. I would too. But that's not what this hardware is being set up for. It's designed to keep a lid on you just as much as anything else.

    why get your panties in a wad for a device you would NEVER buy in a million years anyway?

    Well I won't knowing that it's been deliberately crippled. I do buy "designed for windows N" hardware now because until this point it didn't guarantee that I would be locked out or forced to perform contortions to put whatever OS I wanted on it.

    there are many guys like System76 busting their asses trying to support you and if you don't buy from them and support Linux then you're just being assholes

    They make nice large laptops, no tablets or cellphones. But yeah, I can't wait until my choice in hardware is reduced to a tiny handful of companies because Microsoft has manipulated the rest of it into being exclusive to them. That's fucked up and BROKEN.

    But bitching about Win 8 ARM not letting you boot Linux when most of you wouldn't piss on a Win 8 anything is just bitching for the sake of being a bitch and more than a little pointless, okay

    Gimme a fucking break. I'd buy a Windows 8 device... if it would let me do as I wished up to and including replacing Windows 8. But now I know that since I can't, no I won't. And I'll bitch that choices are being deliberately limited by an anti-competitive monopolist. To ignore the moves being made here is foolish in the extreme.

    FIGHT HARD, O WHITE KNIGHT! MICROSOFT SHALL SURELY REWARD YE IN THE END!

  • by letsief (1053922) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @09:15PM (#38743926)

    I'm really confused by Matthew Garrett's assertion that secure boot creates problems for virtualbox, OS device drivers, and other kernel modules. UEFI secure boot only applies to UEFI executables (basically UEFI device drivers and bootloaders). Only the bootloader hands off control to the OS, UEFI secure boot's job is done. It's up to the OS bootloader to decide if it wants to check a signature on the OS. And from there, its up to the OS to decide if it wants to verify signature on other kernel modules, including drivers. If the Linux folks aren't worried about malicious device drivers acting as rootkits, they don't need to verify device drivers. It's just that simple.

    And maybe if Matthew and the FOSS community are that concerned about standardized key formats for UEFI they should actually join the UEFI Forum. Red Hat and Canonical have certainly been invited to the table, but they instead choose to criticize from the outside rather than be part of the solution. Microsoft has gone out of their way to try to placate the FOSS folks here, at least on x86 (I agree that the situation on ARM is a bit different). MS will sign other bootloaders, if someone will submit one, allowing Linux folks to take partial advantage of UEFI secure boot. MS is requiring user-configurable trust anchors on x86, which is exactly what Red Hat and Canonical asked for.

    I really don't understand Matthew here. He got what he wanted on x86. I can understand him not being happy with the requirements for ARM systems, but he should be ecstatic with Microsoft's new draft requirements for x86 systems.

  • by Zero__Kelvin (151819) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @09:22PM (#38743966) Homepage

    "If the vendors want to build devices and brand them as Windows 8 ..."

    So you think a consortium of vendors got together and asked Microsoft to create Windows 8, and make sure that it is the only OS that can run on their hardware and thereby reduce their market share potential?

  • Re:"Freedom" (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Microlith (54737) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @09:25PM (#38743984)

    Why not? How can they control who buys Windows?

    Easily. Where do you buy licenses for the ARM version of Windows 8?

    But in this case Android tablets already exist and are extremely popular.

    They are, but how popular will they be if Microsoft starts subsidizing the tablets to undercut Android, while pressing the "it runs Windows 8 just like your desktop!" angle?

    And that's resulted in the destruction of Android and booming market dominance of Windows Phone...if you live in a reality that isn't this one.

    Hey, give them time. They're just getting started with their rampage.

    Windows owns 90%+ of that market, naturally that's what hardware manufacturers want to tap into, that is NOT the case with tablets.

    Yeah, Windows owns 90% of the desktop market. And now you can get it on your tablet too!

    And those are really destroying the world, look at how the world hates them!

    The "world" is largely unaware of how computers function as a whole. But it's gotten people like you to come out and defend their spread.

    those who do just choose the alternatives.

    While such alternates are available. Microsoft is working hard to ensure they cease to be.

  • by ClintJCL (264898) <clintjcl+slashdot@gmai l . c om> on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @09:50PM (#38744202) Homepage Journal
    It's actually more like: If McDonald's somehow had magical powers which kept me from putting ketchup (my preferred condiment for chicken) onto their sandwiches, even if it's my own ketchup, I own the sandwich, and were trying to do this at home -- I'd be all for preventing them from preventing that. It's not the same as forcing them to sell ketchup (or anything anybody demands) on every burger, which is how I'd characterize my perception of how you'd characterize the situation.
  • by WorBlux (1751716) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @10:34PM (#38744490)

    hell you got choices coming out your asses, so WTF are you bitching for? Vote with your wallet okay? But just because YOU don't like doesn't mean you get to tell ME or anyone else what device we should buy or what features it should have. If I was gonna buy one of these things, which I'm not BTW, I wanna try one of those $70 Android Indian pads the net has been buzzing about, but if I did and was actually gonna use this for real work I'd WANT it locked down, because if its one thing we've seen its that these things are giant targets for the malware guys!

    First it's a matter of culture, which does and can effect every one of us. A culture where corporation control what you can or can't do with a computer is a culture detrimental to everyone. Second who has the keys? Locking your stuff up as long as you have a key is not problematic at all. What is is when the key is controlled solely by someone who is willing to sacrifice your interests and goals for the sake of their own.

  • by jimmydigital (267697) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @10:52PM (#38744600) Homepage Journal

    I'm sure they don't realize what they are doing... but they will in time. They (unlike apple) don't sell the hardware their software runs on. Therefore.. it's not under their control how many devices are in the market that can run an OS that is so locked down. At first there may be many... but those choices will taper off as sales of linux based devices will always be less expensive. That and people don't like windows on non desktop platforms and I seriously doubt they have done enough right with the next iteration of Windows to change that perception. So in the end.. this will resemble yet another failed Microsoft mobile platform and less like the next desktop OS for the future. In the mean time.. they will continue to shed 3rd party developers as this slow motion train wreck unfolds.

  • Re:"Freedom" (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jedidiah (1196) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @11:03PM (#38744664) Homepage

    Except this isn't hardware markers. This is an abusive monopoly that likes to bully around hardware makers. They have been told to stop repeatedly by multiple national governments and even have managed to be officially labeled as a monopoly by a court of law.

    Hardware makers are just as much the victim here as anyone else. Always have been.

Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it. Some can avoid it. Geniuses remove it. -- Perlis's Programming Proverb #58, SIGPLAN Notices, Sept. 1982

Working...