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

61–70 of 133 posts

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#61

Post by DaveMebs »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #40
recoiledsnake wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And that's how Microsoft killed ARM based netbooks, ultrabooks, tablets, etc that could potentially run Linux because most OEMs will want to have them licensed for use with Windows 8. Why is it Microsoft's responsibility to make Linux run on the hardware that runs their software? What is your stance on Nook Tablet, Kindle Fire etc.? Why shouldn't they be able to secure their OS against jailbreaking and malware just…

>Why is it Microsoft's responsibility to make Linux run on the hardware that runs their software? What is your stance on Nook Tablet, Kindle Fire etc.? I disapprove of Android vendors locking their bootloaders as well. However, this is an entirely different landscape. Microsoft's penetration on laptops and netbooks means that they have the ability to block out competing operating systems unless OEMs (that have to neg…

According to the article, "For non-ARM systems, Microsoft requires that Custom Mode be enabled." It seems incredibly likely that OEMs will "go out of their way to provide a different model with a differently implemented UEFI."

I'd imagine it does matter which architecture was being discussed.

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#62

Post by kstenerud »

recoiledsnake wrote: post #45
burgerbrain wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument seems to assume that I think it is okay for Apple to do what they do... Let me put it this way: 1) Two wrongs do not make a right. 2) Both are worthy of criticism. 3) What Apple does is off topic anyway. This discussion is about Microsoft.

The argument is about how it is illegal, and the SFLC complaining to governments to fix this. If they force MS to license their software to any OEM, they should similarly force Apple to license Mac OS X to Psystar and also unlock the iPhone and iPad's bootloaders.

It's not about forcing companies to license their software; it's about forcing companies to allow unlocking of the bootloader, thus forcing them to compete on features rather than antifeatures (consumer lock-in).

Locked bootloaders on general purpose computing devices are bad news for consumers and for innovation in general. Just imagine how the PC landscape would have evolved without clones. I'd be more than happy to see government intervention in cases like these.

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#63

Post by aptwebapps »

cooldeal wrote: post #36
kennywinker wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we're not talking about just phones and tablets... "[...] yesterday, Qualcomm announced plans to produce Windows 8 tablets and ultrabook-style laptops built around its ARM-based Snapdragon processors" Those will be locked out as well. This is exactly what Cory Doctorow was talking about in his article the other day about "the war on general purpose computing" - ( http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html )

Sorry, that war was fought and lost won with the iPhone and iPad. 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.

> Sorry, that war was fought and lost won with the iPhone and iPad.

No, not really. There's still a long way to go.

And Microsoft's revenue sharing model vs Apple's doesn't have much to do with that.

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#64

Post by nitrogen »

cooldeal wrote: post #42
drivebyacct2 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why is it Microsoft's responsibility to make Linux run on the hardware that runs their software? What is your stance on Nook Tablet, Kindle Fire etc.? I disapprove of Android vendors locking their bootloaders as well. However, this is an entirely different landscape. Microsoft's penetration on laptops and netbooks means that they have the ability to block out competing operating systems unless OEMs (that have to neg…

>Microsoft's penetration on laptops and netbooks means that they have the ability to block out competing operating systems 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. >Regardless, I even granted that there isn't a business reason for them to be friendly to competing operation systems, it's just disappointing to se…

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 market by preventing users from upgrading their OS (as has been traditionally available on Microsoft-targeted computing platforms) through the same kind of license agreements with OEMs that got them into trouble with Be.

Their strategy seems to be to subsidize the licensing cost of the OS by selling Metro apps from the Windows Marketplace. This model will get into trouble if the user loads Android on it. Anyway this is the same model that Amazon, B&N and to some extent Apple uses.

It is not the responsibility of users and OS vendors to preserve the flawed business model of their competitors. Microsoft's competitors shouldn't be forced out of the operating system market just because Microsoft wants to sell its own licenses below "cost" (whatever that means for something that has virtually no cost to duplicate).

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#65

Post by cooldeal »

brudgers wrote: post #58
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…

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…

I seriously doubt that legacy BIOS will support ARM.

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#66

Post by burgerbrain »

recoiledsnake wrote: post #45
burgerbrain wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument seems to assume that I think it is okay for Apple to do what they do... Let me put it this way: 1) Two wrongs do not make a right. 2) Both are worthy of criticism. 3) What Apple does is off topic anyway. This discussion is about Microsoft.

The argument is about how it is illegal, and the SFLC complaining to governments to fix this. If they force MS to license their software to any OEM, they should similarly force Apple to license Mac OS X to Psystar and also unlock the iPhone and iPad's bootloaders.

It's anti-consumer. Who cares if it's legal?

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#67

Post by Steko »

cooldeal wrote: post #36
kennywinker wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we're not talking about just phones and tablets... "[...] yesterday, Qualcomm announced plans to produce Windows 8 tablets and ultrabook-style laptops built around its ARM-based Snapdragon processors" Those will be locked out as well. This is exactly what Cory Doctorow was talking about in his article the other day about "the war on general purpose computing" - ( http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html )

Sorry, that war was fought and lost won with the iPhone and iPad. 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.

"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 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.

Why support MS because they came later, copied the successful innovation and undercut it by a few %? Supporting the company doing the innovating seems like a better path to incentivizing other companies to innovate new products and markets instead of just copying what's successful.

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#68

Post by cooldeal »

sounds wrote: post #39
vena wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It very much changes the issue. That is not an OS developer requiring third-party hardware OEMs prevent loading another OS as part of their licensing agreement. This is fairly specific anti-competitive behaviour, it's not an issue of locking devices in general.

@dangrossman you've just made exactly the point vena was making: "it only prevents the end users from doing things." Using OEM requirements for Windows-certified ARM devices is very similar to the bundling requirements Microsoft was convicted of in US v Microsoft. Also, what you're suggesting with "The OEM can have two versions of every tablet/phone" places the costs on the OEM, where margins are razor thin. Be fair…

How about you try iOS where you can't even install a competing browser, forget about one being bundled. Why is that legal?

Because Windows was deemed a monopoly in the late 1990s. Since Win32 programs won't even run on ARM tablets, I fail to see how what you point out is relevant at all.

>Also, what you're suggesting with "The OEM can have two versions of every tablet/phone" places the costs on the OEM, where margins are razor thin. Be fair - put the burden on Microsoft to stop creating artificial barriers to entry.

There are a zillion tablets out that run Android and some of them can run Ubuntu too. What artificial barriers to entry are you talking about? OEMs needn't even pay a licensing fee unlike with Windows, thus they can be cheaper. Microsoft is already burdened by that.

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#69

Post by drivebyacct2 »

cooldeal wrote: post #42
drivebyacct2 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why is it Microsoft's responsibility to make Linux run on the hardware that runs their software? What is your stance on Nook Tablet, Kindle Fire etc.? I disapprove of Android vendors locking their bootloaders as well. However, this is an entirely different landscape. Microsoft's penetration on laptops and netbooks means that they have the ability to block out competing operating systems unless OEMs (that have to neg…

>Microsoft's penetration on laptops and netbooks means that they have the ability to block out competing operating systems 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. >Regardless, I even granted that there isn't a business reason for them to be friendly to competing operation systems, it's just disappointing to se…

Many Linux operating systems have been fully operation on ARM for some time.

Besides, this issue is much larger. What happens when Windows 9 comes out and is signed with a different set of keys. Obsolescence is now even easier for OEMs and Microsoft to "let" happen.

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#70

Post by cooldeal »

burgerbrain wrote: post #22
drivebyacct2 wrote: post #17

And that's how Microsoft killed ARM based netbooks, ultrabooks, tablets, etc that could potentially run Linux because most OEMs will want to have them licensed for use with Windows 8. 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?

"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.

The people that "deserved ridicule when their fantasy world doesn't pan out" are the paranoid folks that claimed that MS is banning booting Linux on PCs. Microsoft updated the requirements so that OEMs are REQUIRED to provide an option to disable secure boot on PCs. Here we are talking about Post-PC devices that won't even run the legacy x86 code that Windows has a dominance in.
Post reply on HN