Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Security Linux

Will Secure Boot Cripple Linux Compatibility? 545

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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • "Freedom" (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bonch ( 38532 ) * on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @07:14PM (#38742654)

    Would someone interested in Linux on these particular tablets be able to order one from a vendor with Linux (or no operating system) pre-installed? I couldn't find information on whether or not OEMs are restricted from selling pre-installed Linux versions of the tablet. The SoftwareFreedom website says "any ARM device that ships with Windows 8 will never run another operating system, unless it is signed with a preloaded key or a security exploit is found that enables users to circumvent secure boot." The phrase there is "ships with Windows 8," which suggests to me that Custom Boot-enabled versions could ship without Windows. Admittedly, I have a hard time seeing it as a freedom issue, as these are just tech gadgets at the end of the day. I'd rather it was framed as an inconvenience argument, not a freedom one.

    • 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.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by exomondo ( 1725132 )

        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 Tsingi ( 870990 )

          I have an iPad, and I have two Linux Tablets (Before you declare me crazy, I only paid for one of them, a Linux tablet.) I don't see that this is a big issue for tablets. And I build my personal dev boxes from scratch, so I doubt it will be an issue there. You can buy Linux laptops now, not sure how this will affect that. I suspect we will get around it all pretty quick anyway.

          All that aside, why would I want to buy a device that will not let me install whatever I want on my computer?

          Also, Bonch, pl

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

          by Microlith ( 54737 ) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @07:42PM (#38742906)

          So is Apple

          Apple does not sell its OS to 3rd party hardware vendors and dictate how to lock down the device.

          nothing is stopping Linux tablets from coming to market, in fact there are lots of them out there now

          There are, but how long until MS ramps up the pressure to push Android out of the market via legal and possibly illegal means?

          If you buy a 'Designed for Windows 8' device it's no different than buying an iPad with regard to the operating system.

          Sure it is. The vendor is being forced by the OS supplier to set the device up in a way that precludes alternatives, and leveraging their monopoly platform to do it.

          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?

          Yeah, minorities should ALWAYS be ignored. Only the masses should ever get what they want, everyone else can go fuck themselves. Right?

          • by drsmithy ( 35869 )

            Sure it is. The vendor is being forced by the OS supplier to set the device up in a way that precludes alternatives, and leveraging their monopoly platform to do it.

            Microsoft has a monopoly in tablets OSes ? When did that happen ?

        • From my perspective, m$ historic QA on this topic is usually flexible. I plan to buy the tablet, stick a USB up its, "port," and run linux; life is good.

          "Come Bell, I have something to show you." - the Beast
        • 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.

        • The problem is the same as those designed for Windows devices in the mid to late '90s. You would pay about double for that logo even though what you were buying was typically stripped of the usual chips so that the functionality could be run through Windows only drivers. Except in this case it's even more insidious as the devices themselves will have all the capabilities needed to run something else, but because of MS will be rendered incapable of doing so.

          It's clear there's antitrust violations involved wi

        • 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?
        • Re:"Freedom" (Score:4, Interesting)

          by symbolset ( 646467 ) * on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @08:38PM (#38743582) Journal
          This disease has an easy cure. Just don't buy it. You don't want a Windows tablet anyway. Nobody does.
        • by 1u3hr ( 530656 )

          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?

          The difference is: Apple makes and sells iPads. Microsoft doesn't make the hardware. They're leaning on the the manufacturers to prevent any competition.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by pclminion ( 145572 )

        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 adva

        • Because there are limits to what you can require. Requiring that third parties only allow your OS to be installable is significantly worse than bundling a web browser with your OS. Ultimately this sort of multi-corporation misconduct is likely to be a violation of Sherman in so far as it stymies competion and prevents the user from having the full choice of OS on the device.

          This is very different from the iPad where Apple pays for the entire development process and sells it to consumers.

          • The only thing MS is requiring is that you play by their rules if you want to use their trademark. Seeing as there is no present market for Windows-capable ARM devices, I do not see how such a requirement amounts to an abuse of monopoly status -- there IS no monopoly status in this market segment.

            On the other hand, there are already plenty of ARM devices out there which do NOT run Windows. These devices are enormously successful already. You can buy one right now. You are complaining that you cannot put a n

        • 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.

      • 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 CAIMLAS ( 41445 )

        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.

        So? When was the last time you heard anything even remotely interesting from Microsoft in the consumer market? And, in the consumer market, I mean "something which can validly appeal to Joe Sixpack".

        Xbox 360? Before that, what? The Xbox?

        This isn't Microsoft's market anymore. People buy Windows because it runs on the computers they buy, or because they need it for games or Office.

        On the other hand, people actively seek out Android and IOS (Apple) products. They've been hot sellers at Christmas for years.


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

        by Anne Thwacks ( 531696 ) on Thursday January 19, 2012 @03:52AM (#38745944)
        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.

        IANAL, but this would appear to contravene European laws on restrictive trade practices. I can see another monopoly related court case on the horizon, and a possible way for Europe to pay of its bankers.

        • by amorsen ( 7485 )

          IANAL, but this would appear to contravene European laws on restrictive trade practices. I can see another monopoly related court case on the horizon

          Yes, their wrist really HURTS from last timely. SURELY they won't do it again after such punishment.

    • They'll probably make a Windows 8 version (locked) and an Android version (also locked) of each tablet. The demand for anything else is too small to bother with. People who want regular Linux will have to jailbreak.

      • That's the thing. You won't even be able to jailbreak.

        • by Anpheus ( 908711 )

          If the Android version doesn't have a (securely) locked bootloader too then yes you will be able to.

          The situation with Windows 8 on ARM *sucks*, I don't like it and I don't think they should dictate to OEMs that they must not allow custom mode. In my opinion, they went too far with locking down ARM and freeing up x86. For Windows 8 x86 machines, it is required that the OEMs provide a mechanism to install alternative operating systems. For ARM, it is required that they not. This is, to me, wrong. But c'est l

        • Of course you can, it may require replacing a chip on the motherboard but of course it's possible with enough time and effort.
        • Yes, this is the entire point. They're bringing this concept to basic general computing; people are already annoyed at having to jailbreak consumer blackboxes like phones and tablets and game consoles, and now that the masses have rolled over and wagged their tails when presented with these restrictions the powers that be are going even further.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by forkfail ( 228161 )

      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 softwa

    • 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:4, Informative)

      by MrHanky ( 141717 ) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @07:48PM (#38742970) Homepage Journal

      So taking away your freedom to tinker with a gadget you own is an inconvenience issue, not a freedom issue? I think it's more than rather inconvenient that you no longer own the objects you buy. It's a property issue, not an inconvenience.

  • Simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NeoTron ( 6020 ) <> on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @07:19PM (#38742690) Homepage
    Don't purchase any of these ARM powered devices which run Windows 8.
  • by Vandil X ( 636030 ) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @07:22PM (#38742726)
    When the incompatible hardware doesn't sell, the OEMs will hear you loud and clear.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

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

    • No, not really. Linux is a far smaller market share (the only place where it dominates is 'net servers, and server farms like Google's, Amazon's, etc).

      The problem with this bit by bit elimination of Linux is that it makes it harder and harder to develop Linux; it is slowly but surely squeezing Linux out.

      The OEM's will play along; that's where the lion's share of the money is. Linux will wither a bit more, despite being a better tool in certain applications.

      And this won't be the final push to bind hardware

  • 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'.
    • Camel's nose, meet tent. Tent, meet Camel's nose.

    • by ClioCJS ( 264898 ) <cliocjs+slashdot AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @07:33PM (#38742836) Homepage Journal

      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.}

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by exomondo ( 1725132 )
        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?
        • by ClioCJS ( 264898 ) <cliocjs+slashdot AT gmail DOT com> 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 @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.

  • The solution (yeah, as if that will ever happen) is to boycott any and all devices that come with Windows 8 pre-installed, including x86 systems. Microsoft has to be made to understand that they are NOT the only shark in the water.
  • 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.

  • by Techmeology ( 1426095 ) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @07:45PM (#38742936) Homepage
    Unfortunately, most complete hardware systems tend to come paired with software (i.e. the OS). The only people who get to choose their OS are people who build their own PCs. If this becomes too common, the only way will be if it's possible to build your own (much as people do with x86 PCs today). Of course, that still sucks for anyone who wants a mobile device, or who has old (eventually) equipment, doesn't want to build them selves, etc.
    • That's the thing. You won't be able to. The main board will be locked into a given OS if this goes forward. And it's possible that the ARM driven video cards and such may be locked into a given driver as well.

      The days of Computer Shopper style homebuilds are already pretty faded, and I doubt that it would be a viable alternative here.

  • 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?


    Hard Drive Diagnostics tools (self booting ones)

    Dell Diagnostics tools (self booting ones)?

    Acronis True Image


    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.

    • Yep, that's true. Any bootloader, including bootloaders on boot CD/DVDs, will need to be signed when UEFI secure boot is enabled. You'll probably need to disable UEFI secure boot when using old add-in cards, like discrete video cards, too. At least, I think you''ll have to if you want to be able to be able to use your monitor in the preboot environment.

      That actually raises an interesting question though... If you have a motherboard with UEFI secure boot enabled by default, and you try to use an old vide

  • I predict.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bravoc ( 771258 ) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @08:22PM (#38743382) Journal
    There will be a "jailbreak" or somesuch available for these within a matter of hours from when they hit the street.
  • by Alain Williams ( 2972 ) <> on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @08:37PM (#38743552) Homepage

    As I understand it this is about what the firmware loads having to be signed. It then trusts that program to do the right thing and apply tests to ensure that other operating systems or modues are correctly signed before loading them. Ie a chain of trust.

    How long do you think it will be before a signed version of GRUB (that will happily load anything) appears on an FTP site somewhere ? Either by someone cracking the signing key, or someone working late at night at an office somewhere where they have the ability to generate signed binaries and doing a bit of unrecorded extra work. There is a good chance that whoever does it will not be caught ... just pass the binary down a chain of contacts the last of which puts it up somewhere.

    Revoking a key will take a lot of work, it might not be possible to do on kit that is already out in the field. They might make using this signed GRUB illegal, but on what gounds ? They would need new laws.

    What man can do - man can break.

  • 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 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 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.

    • by dbIII ( 701233 )
      Maybe it will be like the DVD region locking thing. Illegal to circumvent in the USA but the rest of the world, including the hardware vendors doesn't care so provide you with an easy way to get around it.
  • by CAIMLAS ( 41445 ) on Thursday January 19, 2012 @03:04AM (#38745784) Homepage

    Does nobody see the irony of the people blasting Microsoft in preference for Android, which is (ultimately) a closed system, mostly installed on locked-down hardware and unrootable installs?

interlard - vt., to intersperse; diversify -- Webster's New World Dictionary Of The American Language