11–20 of 146 posts
Here is a direct link to Matthew Garret's blog post so that you can skip itworld's paraphrasing. http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/5552.html
Does this mean you can just add you own key and self sign any code you want?
"After years of trying to cut off Linux growth as a desktop platform on x86 and x64 PCs, Microsoft may have actually figured out a way to stop Linux deployments on client PCs dead in their tracks."
I'm quite certain Microsoft has (A) not put any significant effort into cutting off growth as a desktop platform, and (B) If they had, they were almost completely successful, and characterizing it as "trying" implies that they had limited success.
Here is a direct link to Matthew Garret's blog post so that you can skip itworld's paraphrasing. http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/5552.html
I doubt any major vendor will do this. First off, they don't want to be locked into selling Microsoft-only machines. If they can't pretend Linux is an option, Microsoft can charge them $1000 for a Windows license and there's nothing they can do about it. If they have Linux hanging over Microsoft's head, though, they'll get better pricing on Windows. (Think this won't happen? It already did with XP on netbooks. When M…
I doubt that secure boot is a factor in this, since it would be easy for vendors to disable by default in the factory if they wanted to install Linux.
The point of the article isn't that the machines will be Windows-only, but that dual booting may no longer be possible. It makes a point of emphasizing that secure booting will likely be easy for the user to disable, although that will disable Windows 8 as well.
I bought a Windows machine from Amazon. The reason that I wasn't able to install Linux was acceptable enough for Amazon to pay for return shipping.
I doubt any major vendor will do this. First off, they don't want to be locked into selling Microsoft-only machines. If they can't pretend Linux is an option, Microsoft can charge them $1000 for a Windows license and there's nothing they can do about it. If they have Linux hanging over Microsoft's head, though, they'll get better pricing on Windows. (Think this won't happen? It already did with XP on netbooks. When M…
No PC OEM has a rational fear of MS doing bad by them, regardless of lock-in. Firstly, MS has no good reason to do that since it would just put the retail price of the PCs too high to sell well, and MS is a volume business and knows it. They're smart enough to know to avoid hurting their own sales. They already know who and how to charge ridiculously high prices per client for software and its not OEMs or retail consumers. Secondly, the OEMs so affected would likely run to the FTC immediately and file complaints of unfair trade practices, and then MS would find itself in a fecal-tornado of bad press and government action that it would surely not enjoy. Thirdly, OEM licenses can only go so high, as then OEMs could just buy and install retail copies of Windows on their machines. In short, this whole fantastical scenario goes against everything that MS has done as a business and everything that MS has done as part of creating and maintaining relationships with OEMs over the past 3 decades, it makes no sense.
As far as the server market, those machines are almost invariably different hardware than commodity PCs. I don't think it's likely that PC component makers or OEMs will opt for Windows-only systems, but I don't think you've put forward a sufficient argument on why that should be the case.
Supporting hardened boot is not the same as requiring it. Microsoft already utilizes this for BitLocker. You can still install Linux on a machine that supports hardened booting and signed images. You just can't enable hardened boot unless you use signed images.