Comments on: Lockdown: free/open OS maker pays Microsoft ransom for the right to boot on users' computers

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 17:06:00 +0000

Why? I am a lawyer and don’t really see much of a problem.

People need to think rather than react. None of this stuff applies in any way – even to ARM-based products – unless you want to sell a computer with a “Designed for Windows 8″ sticker. There will still be zillions of computers in circulation that don’t have UEFI so can’t do secure boot even if they wanted to and I’m sure that if they are capable of running Windows Vista or Windows 7 they are almost certainly going to run Windows 8.

There is potentially a problem if ZYX Corp decides to make a ARM-based device and only sell it with a “Designed for Windows 8″ sticker. They won’t run anything apart from Windows 8 but that may be appropriate for their market. Not many people complain that you can’t install Linux (or anything else for that matter) on an iPad.

I’m sure that any manufacturer who sees a market for ARM-based products not running Windows 8 will ship a version that will boot other software and which does not come with the magic “Designed for Windows 8″ sticker.

By: Allard Schmidt

Allard Schmidt — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 11:15:00 +0000

I advice all Open Source advocates WorldWide just to migrate as many family members and friends to Linux or the more open OS X and ChromeOs… That could make a difference..

By: Allard Schmidt

Allard Schmidt — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 11:12:00 +0000

Microsoft is not holding all the keys, but if the only keys on a Windows 8 box are those from Microsoft than people are stuck.. And the OEM will be lazy, since they care about sales and not about users. Since the average user is ignorant about this they only will discover when it’s too late.

By: Allard Schmidt

Allard Schmidt — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 11:10:00 +0000

No i’m so stupid and you are so smart…

It’s just very easy for the OEM’s to lock the “BIOS” and the average user will not even no how to unlock if the EFI is accessible. So those people are stuck with Windows 8..

By: brian mullan

brian mullan — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 11:03:00 +0000

This has got to be illegal on Microsoft & the PC Manufacturer’s parts.
I could see if the UEFI were managed by an independent open organization that could permit any legit request.
But Microsoft holding the keys … that’s just wrong and got to be some sort of Monopolistic issue someone has got to take to court.

By: James Nelson

James Nelson — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 05:55:00 +0000

” If you don’t want a UEFI Windows 8 PC, just order one without the Microsoft signature.” – Did you even read the article?

“because Microsoft has forbidden it partners from booting an OS that hasn’t been signed by Microsoft, even if the user takes some affirmative step to install a competing system.”

I’m sure it will be super easy to buy a box without UEFI and then just install Windows 8 without the signature. Surely with Microsoft’s puny resources, they won’t bother to check if you’re running on a system that is not complying with their monopolstic worldview.

By: jgs

jgs — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 16:12:00 +0000

Can I be both? Actually I’ve always preferred ‘wiseacre’ but whatever works for you.

By: donovan acree

donovan acree — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 14:37:00 +0000

I get that @dragonfrog:disqus I’m more thinking that we can also look at how many machines are purchased without this new feature since that would pretty much be only non-MS installs.

By: John Ohno

John Ohno — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 17:25:00 +0000

There are indeed more than seventy thousand linux distros. Most of their maintainers are not going to be willing to pay microsoft ninety nine dollars for anything.

By: John Ohno

John Ohno — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 17:23:00 +0000

Windows x64 has security features? Are they actually starting to become sensible? I have a distrust for the security-consciousness of any software franchise that refused to use proper memory protection in consumer units until 2001.

By: John Ohno

John Ohno — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 17:20:00 +0000

There is a gradient of difficulty here. While performing a working linux install used to be somewhere around the same difficulty level as getting a working install of windows, this kind of thing should push it down to somewhere between getting a working Plan9 install and getting a working LFS install. This is not to say it brings it down to the difficulty level of writing your own posix-compliant OS (though that’s nowhere near the OS installation difficulty level upper asymptote), but it certainly takes linux away from the “where’s the power button on this thing”/”how do I internet” crowd, whereas previously it was entirely viable.

By: ZekeSulastin

ZekeSulastin — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 16:45:00 +0000

Do you know how I know you have no idea at all what you’re talking about, similar to most of the commenters?

By: Itsumishi

Itsumishi — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 14:25:00 +0000

http://www.redhat.com/rhel/compatibility/hardware/

http://www.ubuntu.com/certification/

By: Arth Lloyd S. Flores

Arth Lloyd S. Flores — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 12:21:00 +0000

Of course h(cr)ackers won’t stop hacking.. They will give hackers more happy hours.. :)

By: S.L.

S.L. — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 10:19:00 +0000

Turned on UEFI doesn’t equal secure boot.

By: Joe_HTH

Joe_HTH — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 09:38:00 +0000

What are you talking about? You can install whatever you want by turning off the security. Besides, if you don’t want a Windows PC, why they hell would you be upset at this? If you wanted to install something other than Windows, don’t buy a Windows PC.

By: Joe_HTH

Joe_HTH — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 09:33:00 +0000

Anyone who hates on UEFI is an idiot, or an ignorant Microsoft hater who wrongfully thinks Microsoft owns or controls UEFI.

By: Joe_HTH

Joe_HTH — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 09:32:00 +0000

LOL! What the hell are you smoking? There is no Linux Certified Hardware. Truth be told, UEFI is not owned, controlled, or created by Microsoft. The OEMs control that. If you don’t want a UEFI Windows 8 PC, just order one without the Microsoft signature.

By: Allard Schmidt

Allard Schmidt — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 08:37:00 +0000

The general public should be informed about this! If they don’t care about it Microsoft can do what they want. But if they buy a Windows 8 (boxy blocks) and don’t like it they are stuck with it, not even “downgrading” to Windows 7 or upgrading to Linux is an option. They should now that..

By: ǝɔʎoſ ʇʇɐW

ǝɔʎoſ ʇʇɐW — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 08:33:00 +0000

Then so be it. Microsoft does not set the pace of the industry anymore. They are no longer capable of that. They are acting against their own self interest and they will pay dearly.

By: Kimmo

Kimmo — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 03:06:00 +0000

Yeah well, after looking into it a bit more, it doesn’t seem like such a big deal.

My WTF was in reaction to the sensationalised and highly inaccurate reportage above; I’d assumed we could rely on a higher standard of journalism from BB than that.

By: digi_owl

digi_owl — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 18:55:00 +0000

The whole netbook thing was weird. They started out as very special devices, small screens, minimal sized keyboards, small SSD and Linux. The nearest right now are Asus Transformers (funny how Asus started the whole Netbook thing with their EEEPC 701) running Android, and Google Chromebooks.

But HP and Dell sat out the party while ASUS, Acer and MSI duked it out in early period. The MSI model was a messy entry tho, as their SUSE bundle was missing vital drivers and was used as a basis for rebrands sold via big name chains.

Only with MS putting XP on life support and creating very specific hardware requirements (that made netbooks in general bland) did HP and Dell enter the fray. And when they did, we got things like Dell putting a mail in rebate on the high spec Windows model that made it no more expensive than the Linux model (the lowest spec-ed variant of the range).

In the end i do not know if people cared either way, they just went with what was familiar and on the shelves. and the shops were happy to push them as by now they had become so similar to laptops (Windows basically forced the use of HDDs as it could not be made to fit on the SSDs used in the early models) that they could push the old boxed standbys like Norton security.

Basically netbooks went from a kind of Linux based web/net terminal to what amounted to a underpowered ultra-portable laptop.

By: Cowicide

Cowicide — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 04:52:00 +0000

So will Bill Gates offset all the lost money that won’t go to charities because of all the small business owners this hurts?

(CowTip: Small business gives vastly more money to charity than large corporations do)

By: Matthew Garrett

Matthew Garrett — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 03:32:00 +0000

To be fair to Cory, I clarified that after he’d written this post.

By: Antinous / Moderator

Antinous / Moderator — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 23:10:00 +0000

Lighten up, Francis.

By: Kermit D'Froge

Kermit D'Froge — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 22:40:00 +0000

I’m glad you posted that. Did you read it? Because if you did then what you’re showing people is that the desired and advocated for conditions are clearly already met by MS’s implementation. Users can enroll their own keys and users can install whatever the hell they want. It was a non-issue when it first hit the blogowebs and it’s a non-issue now.

By: Kermit D'Froge

Kermit D'Froge — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 22:27:00 +0000

It’s not illegal because it’s a completely inaccurate appraisal of the situation. Go RTFA and come back and describe exactly what you think is illegal. Because it’s not illegal for someone to say “If you want to sell my software, you need to turn on the security so that my software can’t be completely owned by malware from before my software even boots.” It’s not illegal because anyone and everyone can just turn off the security and install whatever they want. But yeah, you’re probably right. “ZOMG MS is abusing its monopoly to make it so that people who sell their software have to turn on security. Do no evil!”

By: Kermit D'Froge

Kermit D'Froge — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 22:18:00 +0000

It’s not supposed to stop all viruses, it is supposed to stop boot sector viruses, which are the single most common way to bypass all of Windows x64′s security features. Mebroot, Rustock, TDSS, etc. All major families of malware which were the most sophisticated in the wild before stuxnet was on the scene. All can *not* be locked out in the consumer context without secure boot. They can be *detected*, but not locked out, in corporate contexts if you use a TPM, but of course you’re afeard of the magic TPM voodoo box which is going to undermine your liberty so that’s right out. They can and have been detected for home users with MS’s free anti-virus, but that’s signature based and therefore a losing game when compared to secure boot. Oh and it’s MS’s free AV so it’s probably evil too right?

By: Kermit D'Froge

Kermit D'Froge — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 22:11:00 +0000

Tim is correct. Cory didn’t RTFA since it says right in the article that the money goes to verisign. If Corey RTFA he would also realize that this wasn’t about some vendors conspiring against Red Hat. This is about Red Hat *making the choice* that they didn’t want to try to work with vendors to include their keys, since they didn’t want to be in a privileged position over other Linuxes. This was about Red Hat *making the choice* to not ask users to disable secure boot. Secure boot is a demonstrably good thing in response to demonstrably difficult malware problem (which I happen to be a researcher on). We don’t need more FUD, but I’ve come to expect it from Cory (I just read him still to keep abreast of the misinformation being spread.) I’m all for open access and open systems, but not when that means we can’t shut out malware even if we want to.

By: Sebastian Spinczyk

Sebastian Spinczyk — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 21:07:00 +0000

“since their average customer is no longer the technically minded geek who enjoys poking, prodding, and playing with every feature of these devices”

Uhm, those geeks haven’t been the “average customer” since at least the mid 80s. The C64 alone sold over 20 million units, and most of them in (western) Europe. There weren’t that many geeks at the time.