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

121–130 of 133 posts

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#121

Post by pdubs »

recoiledsnake wrote: post #54
kenjackson wrote: post #47

First, tihs document is about HW Certification. You can ship an ARM-based system that doesn't follow these rules, just won't be certified by MS -- much like many Android devices aren't Google certified. Furthermore, MS actually bent over backwards on x86 and required for certification that the option to disable secure boot be provided (they could have been silent on this issue): "Enable/Disable Secure Boot. On non-AR…

Agreed on rest of the points, but Windows 8 on ARM is more like Windows Phone in the sense that you can't ship an ARM based system like you can with x86. You need a special license, there will be no OEM or user installable versions of Windows 8 ARM.

What about MSDN? I suspect it will be on there as likely the only legal way for a user to install it.

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#122

Post by recoiledsnake »

pdubs wrote: post #121
recoiledsnake wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed on rest of the points, but Windows 8 on ARM is more like Windows Phone in the sense that you can't ship an ARM based system like you can with x86. You need a special license, there will be no OEM or user installable versions of Windows 8 ARM.

What about MSDN? I suspect it will be on there as likely the only legal way for a user to install it.

Why would it need to be available on MSDN? Windows Phone ROMs are not on there. There will be emulators for developers.

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#123

Post by gergles »

gergles wrote: post #104
Steko wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"They don't expect manufacturers to lock down the devices." He's not saying they do. No one is saying they do. That is the very definition of a straw man argument. Dan Grossman is saying Google has a host of other compliance requirements. Why does Microsoft compliance requirement X cross some terrible line that Google and Apple requirements W, Y and Z don't?

Because MS compliance requirement X is deliberately anti-consumer, anti open-source, and openly hostile to users using their hardware as they see fit?

Awesome, I'm glad we're on the new HN where we downvote things we disagree with. Google doesn't have a compliance requirement of "prevent users from running another OS". MS does. That pretty clearly crosses a line that none of the Google requirements do.

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#124

Post by sounds »

cooldeal wrote: post #77
sounds wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or an x86-based laptop with UEFI Secure Boot* * Windows 8 logo compliance still requires UEFI Secure Boot. This won't affect desktops as quickly but laptops come with minimal BIOS options. Managing keys to install another OS will be omitted by many laptop manufacturers.

Is it too much to ask to read the linked article? Please. >For non-ARM systems, Microsoft requires that Custom Mode be enabled

Yes, I read it. Did you?

Microsoft is requiring Custom Mode not even be _present_ on some of its Windows 8 platforms. How long until they "let it slide" on the rest?

You may be determined to let Microsoft do whatever they please with the hardware you rightfully purchased. That doesn't mean I have to let them.

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#125

Post by Steko »

gergles wrote: post #104
Steko wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"They don't expect manufacturers to lock down the devices." He's not saying they do. No one is saying they do. That is the very definition of a straw man argument. Dan Grossman is saying Google has a host of other compliance requirements. Why does Microsoft compliance requirement X cross some terrible line that Google and Apple requirements W, Y and Z don't?

Because MS compliance requirement X is deliberately anti-consumer, anti open-source, and openly hostile to users using their hardware as they see fit?

"deliberately anti-consumer"

This requirement negatively affects a rounding error of consumers that will probably be able to circumvent the restriction anyway.

Googles forcing G+ & Gmail apps onto a vast majority of users that don't use those platforms is arguably a bigger consumer problem. But nobody cares and rightfully so. The impact is minimal in both cases.

Beyond the negative effect there's a tangible security gain here that is probably a bigger deal for many more customers then are inconvenienced by the locked bootloader.

"anti open-source"

Microsoft is not the EFF and has no mandate to be pro-open source. Google's failure to release the Android development branch, roadmap, the honeycomb delay and their compatibility tests aren't anti-open source?

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#126

Post by Steko »

gergles wrote: post #123
gergles wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because MS compliance requirement X is deliberately anti-consumer, anti open-source, and openly hostile to users using their hardware as they see fit?

Awesome, I'm glad we're on the new HN where we downvote things we disagree with. Google doesn't have a compliance requirement of "prevent users from running another OS". MS does. That pretty clearly crosses a line that none of the Google requirements do.

"Google doesn't have a compliance requirement of "prevent users from running another OS". MS does. That pretty clearly crosses a line that none of the Google requirements do."

The fact that things are different is not in and of itself a real argument. All you're doing is restating what Microsoft's requirement is and attaching your conclusion ("this crosses the line") but you haven't actually shown this.

"none of the Google requirements do"

Can't use another OS: Sky's falling!

Can't use another location service: Who cares right?

A number of Google requirements are secret so how can we confidently say none of them cross the line?

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#127

Post by eropple »

recoiledsnake wrote: post #92
eropple wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is okay with iOS totally BANNING the use of non-Safari browser engines? http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/opera-mini-web-browser/id3637...

Sorry, that's not a browser, it can't even run Javascript. It is basically a web proxy. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_Mini Unlike ordinary web browsers, Opera Mini fetches all content through a proxy server that reformats web pages into a format more suitable for small screens.[32] A page is compressed, then delivered to the phone in a markup language called OBML (Opera Binary Markup Language). Browsers lik…

It is a browser. It is a poor browser, but it's a browser.

FUD elsewhere.

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#128

Post by ekianjo »

nitrogen wrote: post #90
eropple wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but this is Amiga syndrome. Beyond all else, you know why BeOS isn't loaded on systems today? Because it didn't run Windows software. You can assert that Microsoft certainly did not help it along with its OEM deals, but BeOS didn't do itself any favors along the way at any point.

BeOS had an agreement with Hitachi to distribute BeOS on some of their systems. Microsoft also had an agreement with Hitachi (and others?) that prevented Hitachi from displaying an operating system selection menu on boot. That is why we do not have BeOS today, and is only one example of the countless times Microsoft underhandedly and illegally (as determined by courts on multiple continents) harmed consumers and comp…

I do not deny that there is probably some foul play on Microsoft's part, but there was also a time when Microsoft was just a player among others and made it to be the one preferred by the enterprises, and then the general public.

I don't think BeOS would have got very far even if there was no deals against it. After all, there was no massive support from publishers to develop for it, and an OS without software remains a small, niche market. Windows was already huge at the time.

Now, I agree there are probably better OSes out there (either Linux distributions or others) but it all boils down to "what is the platform people develop for". Mass acceptance requires your OS to be able to run enterprise applications, modern games, and to run flawlessly (or at least without major issues) on a good range of hardware. It is very difficult to pull this off unless you have a great amount of ressources nowadays.

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#129

Post by AutoCorrect »

vena wrote: post #111
cooldeal wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 n…

Which makes the licensing of Android phones even more ironic. MS is using the patent system to do to phone manufacturers what MS did to PC manufacturers decades ago.

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#130

Post by AutoCorrect »

cooldeal wrote: post #75
Steko wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If anything, Microsoft is better in the sense that it offers more share of the app cost to the developers and also doesn't charge tithes like Apple does on content." These are just value propositions from an also ran. Apple takes a cut on sales because that's what store's do. If I sell cereal to a supermarket and you walk in and buy a box, the store does not give me all of that money. Why? Because the store worked h…

>Apple takes a cut on sales because that's what store's do. If I sell cereal to a supermarket and you walk in and buy a box, the store does not give me all of that money. Why? Because the store worked hard to get that customer to walk in. Similarly Apple worked hard to make ITMS and App Store work, bringing millions of customers to the apps and music. And no one calls the supermarket's cut a tithe either. The tithe r…

they do charge YouTube, it's just hidden in the ISP to ISP agreements.
Post reply on HN