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

Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

softwarefreedom.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 133 posts

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#111

Post by vena »

cooldeal wrote: post #82
nitrogen wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ARM laptops and netbooks and PCs won't run x86 apps, so I fail to see how MS's penetration will allow them to block out competing operating systems. The ability to run x86 apps is irrelevant. Full-fledged Linux desktop distributions have been available for ARM desktops, laptops, nettops, etc. for a long time. Microsoft is entering this existing market with a product that anticompetitively excludes Linux from the mark…

>The ability to run x86 apps is irrelevant It is very relevant. Can you tell why the EU requires Windows to display a browser selection box on first boot to Europeans, but is okay with iOS totally BANNING the use of non-Safari browser engines? >Full-fledged Linux desktop distributions have been available for ARM desktops, laptops, nettops, etc. for a long time. Microsoft is entering this existing market with a produc…

> Can you tell why the EU requires Windows to display a browser selection box on first boot to Europeans, but is okay with iOS totally BANNING the use of non-Safari browser engines?

Because the restrictions placed on Microsoft were a reaction to several anti-competitive business practices in which MS was effectively forcing OEMs to prop up a Windows+IE monopoly. OEMs were not allowed to remove IE, and as previously noted in US v MS, were often not allowed to install any other browser. OEMs were charged more for Windows licenses were they to offer any machine without Windows as well as mandating OEMs pay fees for each computer sold whether or not it was sold with Windows pre-installed in order to retain their license. This along with market pressure induced OEMs to focus production on Windows-only offerings, creating an anti-competitive environment in the larger, general-use OS market.

To the second point and this...

> Why is it not anti-competitive for Apple to ship their hardware with a completely locked bootloader?

Apple is the OEM. As far as iOS devices are concerned, they own the lot. I presume you didn't intend for them to be included here, but for their x86 devices (iMac, etc), you can install any compatible OS you want.

> How is it legal for the Kindle Fire and Nook to ship with locked bootloaders?

Simply put, Amazon and Barnes & Noble are not in the OS business. They don't stand to gain an unfair advantage from excluding another OS from their device and they are not forcing a third-party business to act on their behalf to support such an advantage. IMHO, Amazon is more likely to find trouble in areas such as their redirection of requests to market.android.com to their own app store though they still let you side-load apps and download them directly through the browser.

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#113

Post by justincormack »

daemin wrote: post #53

From my reading of the restrictions it appears that the restriction is only on adding new keys to the boot ROM. So makers could ship arm computers with appropriate linux keys in the ROM already, and still be compatible with the WIndows 8 requirements.

That would have to be a public key then. Which is just like allowing no key.

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#114

Post by burgerbrain »

recoiledsnake wrote: post #94
burgerbrain wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"make Linux run" You mean: "not prevent Linux from running" But hey, to address what seems to be your point... Lets have a reality check. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. So quick to forget...

Microsoft is nowhere close to being a monopoly on ARM tablets. x86 programs(that make MS dominant on PCs) won't even run on Windows 8 ARM tablets. You seem to have misspelled Apple.

You seem to be under the continued delusion that if I criticism one, then I must support the other.

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#115

Post by melling »

recoiledsnake wrote: post #99
melling wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple doesn't have a monopoly on tablets and Google doesn't have a monopoly on search, but people always throw them out as such. Microsoft, however, has the monopolies (plural). Btw, here are the numbers to prove that the iPad is not a monopoly. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/dec/25/ipad-tablet... Wouldn't it be great if Windows only had a 65%-70% market share?

The install base is what matters, not sales numbers for a short time period. >Google doesn't have a monopoly on search, Maybe you would like to look at a few real world numbers like these ones: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3458947

I doubt if Microsoft would agree with your search numbers. Can you provide some accepted industry source? At any rate, if you want to switch search engines, it's trivial:

http://duckduckgo.com/

http://bing.com/

http://yahoo.com/

Let me know how easy it is to get enterprise to switch off the Office document formats or off of Windows.

As for tablets, sales do matter. The Kindle Fire sold around 5.5 million units. Android will be a strong player.

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#116

Post by gcp »

sjs wrote: post #108
gcp wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have hacked iPads and iPhones to run Android. And nobody actually uses it because there is no hardware back button, etc. That must explain the lack of penetration of Android tablets! (They have no back button either)

Do they have a home button? I'm sure the answer varies but in general you need the hardware and software to agree on some things. That is my point. Even if the software is flexible such as Android 4 that will display the buttons if necessary, or use hardware buttons if they are available. AFAIK Android was basically unusable on iOS hardware, using the sleep/wake button in an odd way and other things that do not work…

Do they have a home button?

Nope. Only volume and on/off. At least that's what the Galaxy Tab has. As you pointed out, new versions of Android allow emulating whatever buttons the device doesn't have on screen. And the newest phones basically don't have any, relying entirely on the screen.

AFAIK Android was basically unusable on iOS hardware, using the sleep/wake button in an odd way and other things that do not work well.

This sounds like the port was botched. Nothing you said explains why it couldn't work. In fact the oppposite: you've already illustrated the button layout is irrelevant.

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#117

Post by burgerbrain »

mattgreenrocks wrote: post #93
burgerbrain wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Can we rehash all the dozen posts about this from months ago when people swore up on down that Microsoft wasn't going to do... well, what the rest of us expect at this point?" This is almost the worst part of it for me. Those people get to play "the voice of reason" at the time, but they don't receive any of the deserved ridicule when their fantasy world doesn't pan out.

It's almost as if being Right On The Internet doesn't mean anything in the real world!

More like: "It's almost as if being right doesn't mean anything", but yeah.

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#118

Post by burgerbrain »

cooldeal wrote: post #76
superuser2 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's irrelevant. Apple sells you the hardware; when you buy an iPad, you are buying an iPad, not a tablet computer that happens to be bundled with iOS. There is no expectation that you can use it as a general purpose computer. When I buy laptop, I am buying a computer. Full stop. If the vendor wants to bundle an OS, great, but I expect to be able to change it. It's far more offensive not to be able to run Linux on…

>When I buy laptop, I am buying a computer. Full stop. If the vendor wants to bundle an OS, great, but I expect to be able to change it. Maybe it's time to change your expectations? Why is Microsoft liable for your expectations? Why not only buy laptops that meet your expectations? >It's far more offensive not to be able to run Linux on a mainstream laptop than not to be able to run Windows on an iPad. ARM laptops ar…

"MS is starting from zero here."

No. Microsoft is starting at one hundred eight billion.

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#119

Post by nl »

simoncion wrote: post #107
recoiledsnake wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Because there is a large market for non-iOS based phones What about tablets? >The market for non-Windows based laptops is much, much smaller (basically OS X). ARM laptops are way different. For starters, they wont run any programs that run on other laptops.

> ARM laptops are way different. For starters, they wont run any programs that run on other laptops. http://blogs.arm.com/smart-connected-devices/60-firefox-35-s... https://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/LinuxChromiumArm https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ARM http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-arm.xml

I think it is pretty reasonable to assume the parent meant "they wont run any Windows programs that run on other Windows laptops"

As I noted in my reply, he's mostly wrong about that too.

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#120

Post by brudgers »

lgeek wrote: post #89
brudgers wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It appears that ARM devices can fallover to legacy BIOS mode to support non UEFI OS's. From page 109 of windows8-hardware-cert-requirements-system.pdf : System.Fundamentals.Firmware.UEFIDefaultBoot Target Feature: System.Fundamentals.Firmware Title: All client systems must be able to boot into UEFI boot mode and attempt to boot into this mode by default Applicable OS Versions:  Windows 8 Client x86  Windows 8 Clien…

There's no BIOS on ARM. BIOS is x86-only.

It's "legacy Bios mode."

I believe that implementation requirements for legacy BIOS mode are not part of the certification.

And in any event, it is likely that the BIOS Boot Specification (BBS) could be used to provide for unique hardware requirements during booting.

Post reply on HN