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

Microsoft Bans Linux/Android Dual-Booting on Windows 8 ARM Devices

dailytech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 137 posts

Re: Microsoft Bans Linux/Android Dual-Booting on Windows 8 ARM Devices

#111

Post by Havoc »

pooriaazimi wrote: post #107
ck2 wrote: post #75

Apparently as consumers we don't own anything anymore, we are just renting it from our corporate overlords.

You don't have to buy these machines. If you choose to buy it, you've bought a Windows 8 machine and have paid for it. It's not like MS promised you a dual-bootable machine and sold you a single-bootable machine. You know what you're getting, and you can choose whether or not it fits your needs.

> you can choose

Microsoft isn't known for playing nice & allowing competitors to compete fairly. So yes there will be choice, but relying on that as a justification is pretty risky imo. Esp considering MS's standard MO and history.

Re: Microsoft Bans Linux/Android Dual-Booting on Windows 8 ARM Devices

#112

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

brudgers wrote: post #74
mjg59 wrote: post #66

The quotations say nothing of the sort. A vendor could provide a dual-boot device providing they have an Android bootloader signed with Microsoft's signing key, which is a service that Microsoft will be providing. A more open question is whether any of the existing Linux vendors will be doing this. Fedora is willing to use Microsoft's signing service for x86 because users will be able to disable the feature or enrol…

> "A more open question is whether any of the existing Linux vendors will be doing this." The Market Economics Fairy predicts that they will not given the limited number of people who are interested in dual booting a tablet and the diversity of device configurations likely to be manufactured.

Limited number? Quite a few enthusiasts will buy x86 tablets JUST for this purpose. Sure, enthusiasts, but enthusiasts also drive Linux to some extent.

Re: Microsoft Bans Linux/Android Dual-Booting on Windows 8 ARM Devices

#113

Post by pooriaazimi »

Havoc wrote: post #111
pooriaazimi wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to buy these machines. If you choose to buy it, you've bought a Windows 8 machine and have paid for it. It's not like MS promised you a dual-bootable machine and sold you a single-bootable machine. You know what you're getting, and you can choose whether or not it fits your needs.

> you can choose Microsoft isn't known for playing nice & allowing competitors to compete fairly. So yes there will be choice, but relying on that as a justification is pretty risky imo. Esp considering MS's standard MO and history.

I hate MS just as the next guy. But Open Thinking (tm) people should no seek freedom (as in speech) through restricting other's (namely, MS) freedom. They have the right to do what they feel like, and we have the choice whether or not to buy them.

(I'm not being snarky)

Re: Microsoft Bans Linux/Android Dual-Booting on Windows 8 ARM Devices

#114

Post by rbanffy »

recoiledsnake wrote: post #83
rbanffy wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple makes their own devices. Microsoft is forcing OEMs who would allow dual booting to restrict user choice because they'd rather not compete.

So, if Microsoft bought up Nokia or HTC and made their own Windows RT tablets, people will be better off with no hardware choice like with iOS and there would be no complaining here? If a company wants to enhance competition between its hardware partners and a hardware choice to the public, they should be forced to not license it on their own terms?

So, now, Microsoft wants to "enhance" competition by making Windows 8 only devices that cannot be upgraded to a non-Microsoft OS.

That's an interesting interpretation of "enhancing".

Re: Microsoft Bans Linux/Android Dual-Booting on Windows 8 ARM Devices

#115

Post by gioele »

Maybe it is the right time to make all this rage converge into contributions to coreboot [1]. A free working alternative is the only practical way out of this future kind of subjection.

Google has already contributed core for some current Ivy Bridge chipsets. It would be nice if coreboot received more testing and development from a broader audience.

[1] http://coreboot.org

Re: Microsoft Bans Linux/Android Dual-Booting on Windows 8 ARM Devices

#116

Post by sounds »

pooriaazimi wrote: post #113
Havoc wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you can choose Microsoft isn't known for playing nice & allowing competitors to compete fairly. So yes there will be choice, but relying on that as a justification is pretty risky imo. Esp considering MS's standard MO and history.

I hate MS just as the next guy. But Open Thinking (tm) people should no seek freedom (as in speech) through restricting other's (namely, MS) freedom. They have the right to do what they feel like, and we have the choice whether or not to buy them. (I'm not being snarky)

Well said.

We also have the right to make waves and be loud about the abusive, monopolistic behavior of Microsoft and Apple. http://jailbreakingisnotacrime.org

In this sense the political fight is for our freedom, not a restriction of their sales. If they do sell crippled devices, we'll just do everything we can to make that crippling public, including jailbreaking the devices to show that the emperor(s) have no clothes: DRM is a logical impossibility except through security by obscurity which is no security at all when the person trying to get in (jailbreak the device) has complete physical control over it.

No one has a guaranteed right to profit (the economic kind of profits).

Re: Microsoft Bans Linux/Android Dual-Booting on Windows 8 ARM Devices

#117

Post by jack12 »

brudgers wrote: post #47
rbanffy wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Windows already had no advantage - all programs would need to be rebuilt for the new platform. That's what killed Windows NT on everything non-x86. The only apps that will be cross-platform will be WinRT/Metro based ones.

Metro is a set of UI guidelines, not a set of programming tools. Applications built using the Silverlight Framework (not to be confused with the browser plugin) should be suitable for cross platform development because CLR runs on both platforms. CLR remains Microsoft's way of integrating the "write once, run anywhere" philosophy within the Windows ecosystem in order to deal with legacy issues.

Are you sure you're not describing cross-platform with Windows Phone instead of Windows 8?

I thought for Windows 8, Microsoft is pushing WinRT as the cross-platform solution, and that "binaries" crossing from x86/x64 to arm will work as-is for javascript, as-is (if pure) for CLR, and with no modifications but requiring recompilation for native (C/C++) WinRT apps.

Re: Microsoft Bans Linux/Android Dual-Booting on Windows 8 ARM Devices

#118

Post by Zak »

pooriaazimi wrote: post #113
Havoc wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you can choose Microsoft isn't known for playing nice & allowing competitors to compete fairly. So yes there will be choice, but relying on that as a justification is pretty risky imo. Esp considering MS's standard MO and history.

I hate MS just as the next guy. But Open Thinking (tm) people should no seek freedom (as in speech) through restricting other's (namely, MS) freedom. They have the right to do what they feel like, and we have the choice whether or not to buy them. (I'm not being snarky)

Criticism is not the same as attempting to restrict Microsoft's freedom. Telling others "these guys placed an arbitrary limitation on their product to hinder competition; you should not do business with them" is the free-market way to influence a company's behavior.

Re: Microsoft Bans Linux/Android Dual-Booting on Windows 8 ARM Devices

#119

Post by nitrogen »

tjoff wrote: post #96
nitrogen wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Android device" isn't a physical thing. It's an idea, a particular (but not the only) application of a set of physical things. Physical things include CPUs, RAM, PCBs, displays, etc. The whole is exactly the sum of its parts. Let's see what's in a computer: CPU, RAM, storage, input, output, software. What's in a smartphone? CPU, RAM, storage, input, output, software. Absent manufacturer lockdown or inane laws like t…

An Android device most certainly is a physical thing. If not, why isn't the CPU just an idea? A particular application of a set of physical things. Physical things include silicon etc. Is a car a physical thing? Yes, you can call it a computer but you could also call it a heap of atoms - both statements are true, but they are pretty much both just as useless to describe what an android device really is. Again, my clo…

Yes, you can call it a computer but you could also call it a heap of atoms - both statements are true, but they are pretty much both just as useless to describe what an android device really is.

I disagree -- knowing something is a computer is knowing that it can be virtually infinitely repurposed. "Computer" is an entirely different kind of thing from anything else, regardless of the form it takes.

[quoted from another post] You guys are completely missing my point.

Don't mistake disagreement for obtuseness.

Also, this thread is too long already, but I wanted to mention the philosophies that seem to be driving our respective arguments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology

Re: Microsoft Bans Linux/Android Dual-Booting on Windows 8 ARM Devices

#120

Post by McGlockenshire »

gioele wrote: post #115

Maybe it is the right time to make all this rage converge into contributions to coreboot [1]. A free working alternative is the only practical way out of this future kind of subjection. Google has already contributed core for some current Ivy Bridge chipsets. It would be nice if coreboot received more testing and development from a broader audience. [1] http://coreboot.org

Coreboot is a good thing, but it's going to be hard to succeed without hardware vendor support, and that will be hard to build unless people actually want the product.

I work for a VAR. Our preferred vendor was one of the first to market with motherboards that expressly supported Coreboot. We're supporters of OSS, and so are our customers, so we figured that they'd be popular.

We sold only a handful over about two years. Our competitors didn't seem to have much more success, as our vendor didn't continue the experiment into the following motherboard generations.

Post reply on HN