I’ve always thought Linux was about choice… Yet you praise it for including a suite of software I may very well end up replacing. I’ll admit Windows does this, too, to a degree. Still, even my Windows machines have been customized extensively, using primarily FOSS and zero commercial software.

Really, I think people think Windows is “easier to use” because they’re scared of the command line. And installing things from source can be quite daunting for neophytes.

Obligatory disclaimer: I love Linux and run it on several of my machines. However, I can’t recommend it to a friend except in very specific circumstances(servers, low-end hardware, media centers, etc.) due to the stability issues I’ve encountered and the generally low technical ability of most people I know.

Microsoft stamped down on it, said that anyone who did this would no longer be a MS certified partner and would have to pay full retail for all of their licenses and couldn’t put that little sticker on the computer.

THAT is why Linux is not more widely used. That is also the real nut of the anti-trust case against MS, not some bullshit about what software they bundled for free.

Because by and large people aren’t interested in running Linux on the desktop? I thought this much would have become evident by now…

What?  Have you ever had to install or re-install Windows on any computer, ever?  Tracking down driver software for the sound card, video card, wifi, etc. ad nauseum . . . that alone can take hours.  The actual installation is mind-numbing in its slowness.  Then there’s the fun of registering your product key online.  That’s if you can get enough driver support to get to the internet.  If not, Gods help you, because you’ll have to call Microsoft on the phone.  And wait.  And wait.

As for getting useful things done, well, you’ll have to install (and quite possibly make a trip to the store to buy) an office suite, graphics program, etc. that don’t suck all the balls that ever were, are, and will be.  So add in more money, and more time.

Conversely, a typical GNU/Linux distribution comes with GIMP image editor, LibreOffice, KOffice or Gnome Office, music software, a video player, etc., etc.  Ubuntu, to give an example, has ~25,000 digitally signed, free programs downloadable from their own archives.  No money, no trip to the store, and installation is ridiculously simple.

The only reason people think Windows is “easier to use” is because someone else has done all the work of installing it, installing productivity software, and getting the whole cluster**** to play nice together before said opinion generator ever got their hands on the computer.

I suggest reading it and reviewing it. Then perhaps you should peruse this FAQ: http://www.chillingeffects.org/anticircumvention/faq.cgi

It might clarify some of your ideas.

“A strict interpretation of the DMCA may prohibit reverse engineering, regardless of whether or not copyright infringement occurs in the process.”

Please read my post again, notice how there were other SCARY words in there as well, such as ACTA and WIPO. Also note the use of the language regarding TECHNICAL PROTECTION MECHANISMS (see Canadian bills C32 and C11). This kind of jargon is what YOUR GOVERNMENT sends to other nations to include into their own copyright laws.

Also SOFTWARE is copyrighted in your country, thus derivative works and modifications to software are covered under your copyright act. Also why did you quote “No person shall
circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to
a work protected under this title.” Because it doesn’t seem to care what your intention is, modifying a UEFI against your OEM’s wishes regardless of the access to say WINDOWS or whatever copyrighted software still is circumventing “a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title” whether or not it works or not.

Furthermore if a UEFI breaker could be used to violate the Windows copyright (you do not actually have a right to modify it, did you read the EULA?) then the DMCA bans its sales, distribution and dissemination. What a catch-22.

But you’re always free to interpret this anyway you want, just as how MS’s lawyers, DOJ’s lawyers and the judge are free to interpret the law as well.

Anti-circumvention only applies when your circumventing protections to gain access to copyrighted works (ie. movies, music, the usual) the Digital Millennium COPYRIGHT Act says nothing and really doesn’t care what you install on the hardware as long as said thing isn’t a cracked copy of Windows (thus circumventing protections put to control access to a copyrighted work)

The “illegality” would be the hacking of your OWN HARDWARE to enable linux to boot. This would mean you violate Digital Rights Managment/Technical Protection Mechanisms protected by US DMCA law and further enshrined in the ACTA agreements and WIPO agreements in order to force UEFI to be ignored or to boot your own OS.

To do anything else on your computer would require violating DRM/TPM , thus making your installation of illegal because you have circumvent UEFI.

There is no proposal to make running Linux illegal, NONE. Proposals from a source that is peddling false claims need to be considered suspect. Yes I know some folk think that Bill Gate is Baal and he eats babies, but sometimes its the conspiracy theorists who are wrong.

The proposal for supporting Linux given is completely unworkable and would defeat the whole point of secure boot. For secure boot to work it has to be the default. That is totally non-negotiable.

To make it possible to run a non-signed O/S has to involve going into console mode and selecting a switch to disable the secure boot. That should be pretty easy for those people who need to do so. Alternatively, permit an additional signing root to be added to the root-store.

The best solution is of course to distribute a signed version of the Linux executable. But that is not possible because RMS cut everyone’s nose of to spite his face.

Linux is a large part of the market so obviously BIOS makers are going to make it possible to run Linux. But that does not mean that the Linux community gets to make silly rules and then force the rest of us to accomodate them. 

EFF, front and center!

Yours truly *open source* author, contributor and user.

P.S. I write under dual bsd/artistic (the so called perl-license)

Running Windows is saying that you value convenience, ubuquity, and wasting time playing new games over the broader, decades long struggle for freedom of choice and expression. Using Windows, unless for specific applications that cannot be replaced with FOSS, can only be based on cynicism, laziness, or ignorance.

Apple, sadly, is totally in bed with MS. It’s a much different user experience, but stems from the same philosophy.

Actually there are at least three Linux-only PC vendors! I’ve had laptops from two of them: EmperorLinux, ZaReason and System76.

That was probably true 10 years ago.  But not today.

Although, asking if Linux is “easy to use” is something akin to asking if books are “easy to read”.  Linux comes in a wide range of flavors.  And on top of Linux is a selection of window managers.  And regardless of which window manager you choose, there is a selection of file managers and email clients and internet browsers.  Linux is freedom of choice.  Linux is freedom.

The point about Windows being ubiquitous is obviously true.  And it certainly has an grip on the mindshare. But I wonder if fear is part of the reason. I once knew a guy who had been in prison most of his life who told me he had a hard time adjusting to life outside of prison because he had to make his own decisions.  I think many Windows users fear freedom.

Well, it was, until they decided to force you to interact with it in a completely new way, whether you like it or not.