4 ms·

I've been a Microsoft fanboy for a long time, and I've been speaking out about the Secure Boot brouhaha because there was effectively no evidence that they were

by daeken 15y ago

I've been a Microsoft fanboy for a long time, and I've been speaking out about the Secure Boot brouhaha because there was effectively no evidence that they were actually attempting to lock anyone out, but this is simply inexcusable. Sad.

melling 15y ago
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._Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft "Microsoft's true anticompetitive clout was in the rebates it offered to OEMs preventing other operating systems from getting a foothold in the market" It shouldn't be a PC vs Mac world today. It should be PC, Mac, BeOS, OS/2, Linux, etc.
- ekianjo 15y ago
  > 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 free market situation with personal computers and litterally hundred of brands to choose from. All incompatible. And only a few brands made it through the years, with the IBM PC standard getting the first place. Fast Market growth favors big players.
  - nitrogen 15y ago
    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.
    - eropple 15y ago
      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.
      - nitrogen 15y ago
        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 competitors. Read the first page of this: http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/exhibits/1584.pdf http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/exhibits/1584.pdf Relevant section: The BeOS is bundled with the machine and is already pre-installed on the hard drive. As shipped from the factory, your FLORA Prius will NOT boot the BeOS... Edited to add: We can never tell what would have happened to these competing systems without Microsoft's manipulation of the market, but Microsoft's involvement in their demise is a historically and legally documented fact.
        ekianjo 15y ago
        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.
- cooldeal 15y ago
  >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.
  - sliverstorm 15y ago
    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.
    - beambot 15y ago
      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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg
  - melling 15y ago
    Apple doesn't have a monopoly on tablets and Google doesn't have a monopoly on search, but people always throw them out as such. Microsoft, however, has the monopolies (plural). Btw, here are the numbers to prove that the iPad is not a monopoly. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/dec/25/ipad-tablet-dominates-third-quarter-2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/dec/25/ipad-tablet... Wouldn't it be great if Windows only had a 65%-70% market share?
    - recoiledsnake 15y ago
      The install base is what matters, not sales numbers for a short time period. >Google doesn't have a monopoly on search, Maybe you would like to look at a few real world numbers like these ones: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3458947 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3458947
      - 15y ago
adgar 15y ago
> I've been speaking out about the Secure Boot brouhaha because there was effectively no evidence that they were actually attempting to lock anyone out No evidence, just history. Lots and lots of history.

by daeken 15y ago

melling 15y ago

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._Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft "Microsoft's true anticompetitive clout was in the rebates it offered to OEMs preventing other operating systems from getting a foothold in the market" It shouldn't be a PC vs Mac world today. It should be PC, Mac, BeOS, OS/2, Linux, etc.

ekianjo 15y ago
> 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 free market situation with personal computers and litterally hundred of brands to choose from. All incompatible. And only a few brands made it through the years, with the IBM PC standard getting the first place. Fast Market growth favors big players.
- nitrogen 15y ago
  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.
  - eropple 15y ago
    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.
    - nitrogen 15y ago
      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 competitors. Read the first page of this: http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/exhibits/1584.pdf http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/exhibits/1584.pdf Relevant section: The BeOS is bundled with the machine and is already pre-installed on the hard drive. As shipped from the factory, your FLORA Prius will NOT boot the BeOS... Edited to add: We can never tell what would have happened to these competing systems without Microsoft's manipulation of the market, but Microsoft's involvement in their demise is a historically and legally documented fact.
      - ekianjo 15y ago
        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.
cooldeal 15y ago
>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.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  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.
  - beambot 15y ago
    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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg
- melling 15y ago
  Apple doesn't have a monopoly on tablets and Google doesn't have a monopoly on search, but people always throw them out as such. Microsoft, however, has the monopolies (plural). Btw, here are the numbers to prove that the iPad is not a monopoly. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/dec/25/ipad-tablet-dominates-third-quarter-2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/dec/25/ipad-tablet... Wouldn't it be great if Windows only had a 65%-70% market share?
  - recoiledsnake 15y ago
    The install base is what matters, not sales numbers for a short time period. >Google doesn't have a monopoly on search, Maybe you would like to look at a few real world numbers like these ones: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3458947 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3458947
    - 15y ago

adgar 15y ago

> I've been speaking out about the Secure Boot brouhaha because there was effectively no evidence that they were actually attempting to lock anyone out No evidence, just history. Lots and lots of history.