I may be missing something, but it doesn't sound like an OEM is prevented from including additional keys, from say cannonical and redhat, or even simply an OEM key that is used to sign a generic boot loader like grub.
Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices
71–80 of 133 posts
Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't seriously be surprised by this. Microsoft can't be trusted until their desktop monopoly is destroyed. I guess the US vs Microsoft is 14 years old this year. Maybe we've all forgotten how Microsoft destroyed all other PC OS'es and how Windows wouldn't run without Internet Explorer; Microsoft claimed it was part of the OS and there was no way to remove it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microso…
> It shouldn't be a PC vs Mac world today. It should be PC, Mac, BeOS, OS/2, Linux, etc. There are a number of small, niche systems around the world that few people know about. When something gets broad popularity it is natural to see only a few systems get the cake, the cream of the cake and the cherry on it while the others get the crumbs. "He who has more, gets more" if you know the saying. In the 80s you had a fr…
Fast Market growth favors big players.
The current OS landscape has little to do with the size of the players, and everything to do with back-room deals between Microsoft and OEMs to e.g. prevent OEMs from loading BeOS on their systems.
Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices
#73Earlier 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.
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.
"Here we are talking about Post-PC devices"
Oh, so we are only talking about the proclaimed future of personal computing then? I guess it's perfectly fine then!
No. Anti-consumerism deserves condemnation, no matter how you try to spin it.
Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It shouldn't be a PC vs Mac world today. I thought we were living in a post-PC world? Restricting Microsoft here would unfairly advantage Apple's continuing monopoly of tablets.
That prospect doesn't bother anyone. Apple can be twice as restrictive as Microsoft, and people will still be raising a fuss over what MS does. How do we know? Well, it's happening right now.
It bothers me.
Our reservations about Apple should mirror those about Microsoft. Good design and UX are not excuses to be complacent. I highly suggest watching Cory Doctorow's recent 28c3 talk on "The Coming War on General Computation": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg
Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 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 reference is to the content, not the cut of the cost of an app, which Apple neither hosts nor delivers, but takes a 30% cut of.
Eg. http://blog.readability.com/2011/02/an-open-letter-to-apple/
Also, why can't your argument extend to ISPs? They have done all the hard work getting the customer, why shouldn't they be able to charge YouTube for allowing them to show ads to their customers?
Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Apple produces their own hardware Samsung and Foxconn and a lot of other suppliers make the hardware. Apple does not own the factories.
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 are nowhere close to mainstream. They cannot run any Win32 applications. MS is starting from zero here.
Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or an arm-based ultrabook.
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
Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices
#78Earlier 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…
I think this is wrong.
Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices
#79The moral of the story is, don't buy a windows phone if you want to reflash it.
Related: Don't sign an expensive OEM deal with Microsoft if they're going to lock you in to what could be a Windows Phone 7 type disaster.
A smart OEM would avoid certification, instead focusing on making a product that could run Linux, or Android, or whatever WebOS becomes, instead of getting locked to a sinking ship.
The reason people are drawn to Windows is because their x86 software from the 1990s still works. How many apps are going to work on ARM out of the box?
Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices
#80And 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?
>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…
"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...