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

151–160 of 178 posts

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

#151

Post by sounds »

Guvante wrote: post #134
sounds wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for that. That leaves just one legal issue that really needs to be raised: How is it legal to _deny_ me full access (defined by the removal of all Microsoft software, something the European Commission has repeatedly upheld) until I have completed some Microsoft-controlled procedure? I don't want Windows on the machine. Assuming I buy from the 3 largest vendors, excluding Apple, is it not anti-competitive to _l…

You seem to be under the impression that this setup was created for the express purpose of denying you access to the hardware until you have agreed to the EULA. However that is a direct contradiction of the person you are responding to, who mentions that this is a vestige of a certain set of configuration options that are common on Windows 8 machines. This is not intended, and will likely be patched if enough complai…

No, I'm not countering DannyBee. I'm collecting the list of legal arguments that might be used if/when this is litigated.

Lovely as it is that Microsoft didn't mean for it to work like this, they're the one who will get the service of process saying "please appear in court and defend your position," if/when this is litigated. That is the kind of complaint they might actually "hear" that would get a response.

I don't care about their good intentions. Get out of my hardware, get out of my life, Microsoft.

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

#152

Post by yuhong »

icelancer wrote: post #57
npsimons wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it even that common to find hardware that will take a non-USB keyboard anymore? I've got some, but it's old .

Any/all motherboards serious about gaming with have a PS/2 port due to N-key rollover and interrupt-speed typing.

Also due to fans of the old IBM Model M keyboards.

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

#153

Post by bitcracker »

mjg59 wrote: post #150
bitcracker wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don't get it. Microsoft is not that important anymore today as it had been for decades. There are extremely cheap ARM boards (Raspberry, Beagle Bone, etc.) that are almost suitable for Internet and Office applications right now. And I think soon we will have the next generation of Raspberry and Beagle Bones with 1.5 GHz dualcore or quadcore, and we can even built our own cluster of these boards for servers --…

What use is a Pi when I'm sitting on a plane?

That's your reason to buy a WinRT pad and put Linux on it?

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

#154

Post by mjg59 »

bitcracker wrote: post #153
mjg59 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What use is a Pi when I'm sitting on a plane?

That's your reason to buy a WinRT pad and put Linux on it?

It's my reason for owning a laptop that came with Windows 8. This particular one isn't affected by the problem discussed here, but many other laptops are.

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

#155

Post by mhurron »

mjg59 wrote: post #133
mhurron wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the case of a general purpose computer, I'm willing to bet you'd be wrong. We're not talking about a Surface tablet here.

Have you looked at an Ultrabook? Getting at the hard drive involves disassembling the entire machine, something that's almost impossible to do without either specialised tools or a willingness to inflict some amount of cosmetic damage.

Honestly, no I didn't think about that, but I would say that you might be starting to leave the realm of general there.

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

#156

Post by DannyBee »

glesica wrote: post #130
DannyBee wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Going to court at all is a loss. Why should I have to risk having to pay for a lawyer and take time out of my day to convince a judge that I shouldn't be bound to the terms.

You can always be taken to court, they just don't often take you when they are going to lose. Since that is, here, independent of whether you agree, ...

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

#157

Post by DannyBee »

Supermighty wrote: post #111
DannyBee wrote: post #49

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…

> 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. And Microsoft probably knows this, and would avoid it at all costs. But having an overly broad EULA helps them push around the n00b Linux installer who doesn't know any better.

I completely agree that they would do this, right up until the point it got hairy for them.

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

#158

Post by DannyBee »

sounds wrote: post #83
DannyBee wrote: post #49

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…

Thanks for that. That leaves just one legal issue that really needs to be raised: How is it legal to _deny_ me full access (defined by the removal of all Microsoft software, something the European Commission has repeatedly upheld) until I have completed some Microsoft-controlled procedure? I don't want Windows on the machine. Assuming I buy from the 3 largest vendors, excluding Apple, is it not anti-competitive to _l…

It's generally legal (at least in the US) to contract for almost anything. Consideration does not have to be money, it can be foregoing something.

So for example, a contract for sale that said "i give you a copy of windows, and you agree not to marry anyone for 3 years and give me $50" would generally be valid, at least in the US.

Everything else is an argument about whether the contract is "against public policy", or whether the use of that contract constitutes "anticompetitive behavior".

These are two very difficult questions, and in general very fact/doctrinal specific. The Sherman Antitrust act in the US is a very vague piece of law that, if read strictly, outlaws all contracts (Since it outlaws contracts in restraint of trade, but basically all contracts are restraints on trade in one way or another)

Fun fact: Technically you can get 10 years in jail for violating antitrust law.

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

#159

Post by fractallyte »

scholia wrote: post #119
fractallyte wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'PC' ('personal computer') is a general purpose computing device, based on the original IBM architecture. The point is, it was never tied to any particular operating system. Any attempt to 'tie' the hardware to a proprietary OS can be met with a legal challenge on these grounds. So, regardless of what manufacturers would like customers to think, it is possible to obtain an OS-free computer, even if it entails refusin…

Historically correct (IBM offered three different operating systems) but it stopped being true a long time ago. PCs are sold as integrated systems, and they are designed and manufactured to run Windows. You can claim it's an "anti-competitive hoodwink" but Microsoft just spent a decade with the US Justice Department's foot on its neck, specifically to prevent any anti-competitive hoodwinking. There's also nothing to…

I'm drawing attention to the fact that tying an OS to (what should be) generic hardware is anti-competitive, and in many countries, illegal. If it the hardware is OS-specific, it shouldn't be marketed as a 'PC'.

Furthermore, the fact is that if I want a particular laptop PC, Windows is bundled in almost every instance, and I have to jump through hoops to force the manufacturer to take it back.

It's not a conspiracy. But it is illegal.

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

#160

Post by fractallyte »

FireBeyond wrote: post #137
fractallyte wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'PC' ('personal computer') is a general purpose computing device, based on the original IBM architecture. The point is, it was never tied to any particular operating system. Any attempt to 'tie' the hardware to a proprietary OS can be met with a legal challenge on these grounds. So, regardless of what manufacturers would like customers to think, it is possible to obtain an OS-free computer, even if it entails refusin…

You appear to be entirely unaware that Microsoft has spent the best part of a decade responding and working with a Justice Department who was acting on behalf of frustrated or outraged consumers and competitors who believed exactly that. They came to a partial agreement with your position, whilst dismissing other claims entirely.

Conversely, in 2010 I had to resort to issuing a court summons to Samsung (UK) before they finally relented and gave me a refund on the unwanted Windows OS that was bundled with my laptop.

It was annoying. Reading the headline, it appears that a similar annoyance is continuing even now.

Post reply on HN