Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Secure Boot isn't the only problem facing Linux on Windows 8 hardware

mjg59.dreamwidth.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 178 posts

Re: Secure Boot isn't the only problem facing Linux on Windows 8 hardware

#41

Post by doktrin »

pondababa wrote: post #37
doktrin wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why this comment is being downvoted. Certainly, agreeing clicking through the EULA isn't ideal, but is it anything other than a theoretical nuisance? I'm genuinely curious - does there exist some relevant and concerning precedent here? If this turns out to actually become an issue, it would probably harm Microsoft more than anyone - and would be a boon to manufacturers willing to bundle Linux on pre-built…

If you agree to the EULA, then you can't get a refund for the Windows license that comes with the computer.

Fair. This is a legitimate concern. I guess I'm a fairly uninformed consumer, as I've never actually sought a refund for a Windows license (nor known this was a possibility).

Re: Secure Boot isn't the only problem facing Linux on Windows 8 hardware

#42

Post by mikestew »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #12
pfraze wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not ideal, but what are the actual effects?

A EULA is a legal document, it can contain myriad of terms. Indeed, most EULAs bind you to future as-yet-disclosed terms as well. That's no small thing.

Note that I commented above that I am in disagreement the way MSFT arranged this. However, to be fair to the one posing the question, the actual outcome of clicking through the EULA to install the OS of your choice is probably nothing (well, you won't be getting your money back for that Windows license). EULA or not, nothing will happen. It's "the principal of the thing". In this case, it's a pretty big matter of principal, though.

Re: Secure Boot isn't the only problem facing Linux on Windows 8 hardware

#45

Post by sillysaurus »

mikestew wrote: post #42
InclinedPlane wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A EULA is a legal document, it can contain myriad of terms. Indeed, most EULAs bind you to future as-yet-disclosed terms as well. That's no small thing.

Note that I commented above that I am in disagreement the way MSFT arranged this. However, to be fair to the one posing the question, the actual outcome of clicking through the EULA to install the OS of your choice is probably nothing (well, you won't be getting your money back for that Windows license). EULA or not, nothing will happen. It's "the principal of the thing". In this case, it's a pretty big matter of pri…

It doesn't matter that the outcome is nothing. What matters is that you agreed to give up your rights. It's an opening for them if they should choose to pursue action against you.

Re: Secure Boot isn't the only problem facing Linux on Windows 8 hardware

#47

Post by dlitz »

pfraze wrote: post #2

What's wrong with agreeing to the EULA?

Speaking of the EULA, couldn't I just lie to my tablet?

Assume there's no communication back to Microsoft and no need for a license under copyright law. Couldn't I just click the "I agree" button while not actually accepting the EULA? Surely, the tablet itself can't be a party to a contract, right?

Re: Secure Boot isn't the only problem facing Linux on Windows 8 hardware

#48

Post by venomsnake »

znmeb wrote: post #40

What a whiner! Maybe it's different for laptops, but for desktops, you can still go almost anywhere and have a custom-built system made without any Windows install at all! Huge hard drive, flaming fast GPU, RAM up tha wazoo, studio-grade sound card and as many cores as Intel or AMD can cram onto a chip these days. Hell, if you want a Linux laptop, buy a Sputnik from Dell!

It is imperative to fight for principles when it first occurs not when your own ass is in the fire.

We lost the apple devices as general purpose, android is not much better and the walled gardens are encroaching the PC.

Re: Secure Boot isn't the only problem facing Linux on Windows 8 hardware

#49

Post by DannyBee »

FWIW, As a lawyer, I have a lot of trouble believing that assent to a contract you can't avoid, done specifically for the purpose of removing the contracted software, would ever be held to bind you to the terms and conditions of that contract.

In fact, i'd go so far as to say that if Microsoft ever actually tried to enforce, it would run them into serious regulatory trouble.

If push came to shove, i'm sure they would take the position that this was a hardware issue, and not their legal intention.

(I completely agree this is a ridiculous situation, and you shouldn't have to agree to anything. But it actually makes for great facts to fight a clickwrap fight on)

Re: Secure Boot isn't the only problem facing Linux on Windows 8 hardware

#50

Post by DannyBee »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #12
pfraze wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not ideal, but what are the actual effects?

A EULA is a legal document, it can contain myriad of terms. Indeed, most EULAs bind you to future as-yet-disclosed terms as well. That's no small thing.

Most EULAs cannot validly bind consumers to future as-yet-disclosed terms.

As above, in this specific situation, where you are agreeing because that is the only way to effectively remove the software, i have trouble seeing any court holding you to those terms.

If you were trying to get around agreeing to the license but still using windows 8, sure.

Post reply on HN