6 ms·

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

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?

burgerbrain 15y ago
"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.
- cooldeal 15y ago
  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.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    "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.
- mattgreenrocks 15y ago
  It's almost as if being Right On The Internet doesn't mean anything in the real world!
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    More like: "It's almost as if being right doesn't mean anything", but yeah.
wmf 15y ago
I thought most of the discussion last time was about x86; I've never heard of UEFI for ARM and I suspect most haven't either.
- drivebyacct2 15y ago
  Now I'm curious to find the old revision of this document, but the linked article seems (to me) to imply that the new no-uefi-secure-exemptions provision was added to an existing discussion of UEFI/ARM. I could be wrong, and I'm not sure the distinction matters significantly, the discussion here on HN was pretty clearly in regard to Microsoft's intentions with UEFI and whether it was about being anti-competitive or truly for security.
recoiledsnake 15y ago
>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 like Apple does? If they're forced to not have restriction by the government, I propose that the government force Apple and other vendors to open up their hardware, so that Windows 8 and Linux can run on them. >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? I believe they were referring to x86 machines, not ARM.
- drivebyacct2 15y ago
  >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 negotiate contracts with Microsoft) go out of their way to provide a different model with a differently implemented UEFI. Considering the number of manufacturers selling Linux computers now, that seems unlikely. 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 see them resorting to this. I have to wonder if it's in part because of how far behind they are in terms of phones/tablets. >I believe they were referring to x86 machines, not ARM. Does it matter? The conversations that were playing out were discussing Microsoft's intentions wrt to UEFI.
  - cooldeal 15y ago
    >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 see them resorting to this. I have to wonder if it's in part because of how far behind they are in terms of phones/tablets. 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.
tzs 15y ago
The discussion months ago was about x86, I believe. According to the article, "For non-ARM systems, Microsoft requires that Custom Mode be enabled". I suspect that it will turn out that Microsoft knows that Apple and Android have built a possibly insurmountable lead on ARM and so will be subsidizing the hardware that ships with Windows 8 in order to lower the price to the consumer to try to buy market share. For obvious reasons they would not want people who want an Android tablet to see an Android tablet for, say, $400, and a Windows 8 tablet from the same manufacturer with identical hardware specs for $300 (because of Microsoft's subsidy) that they could buy and then put Android on.
silon3 15y ago
So, no running Windows under Linux VM ->no Windows for me.

burgerbrain 15y ago

"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.

cooldeal 15y ago
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.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  "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.
mattgreenrocks 15y ago
It's almost as if being Right On The Internet doesn't mean anything in the real world!
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  More like: "It's almost as if being right doesn't mean anything", but yeah.

wmf 15y ago

I thought most of the discussion last time was about x86; I've never heard of UEFI for ARM and I suspect most haven't either.

drivebyacct2 15y ago
Now I'm curious to find the old revision of this document, but the linked article seems (to me) to imply that the new no-uefi-secure-exemptions provision was added to an existing discussion of UEFI/ARM. I could be wrong, and I'm not sure the distinction matters significantly, the discussion here on HN was pretty clearly in regard to Microsoft's intentions with UEFI and whether it was about being anti-competitive or truly for security.

recoiledsnake 15y ago

>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 like Apple does? If they're forced to not have restriction by the government, I propose that the government force Apple and other vendors to open up their hardware, so that Windows 8 and Linux can run on them. >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? I believe they were referring to x86 machines, not ARM.

drivebyacct2 15y ago
>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 negotiate contracts with Microsoft) go out of their way to provide a different model with a differently implemented UEFI. Considering the number of manufacturers selling Linux computers now, that seems unlikely. 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 see them resorting to this. I have to wonder if it's in part because of how far behind they are in terms of phones/tablets. >I believe they were referring to x86 machines, not ARM. Does it matter? The conversations that were playing out were discussing Microsoft's intentions wrt to UEFI.
- cooldeal 15y ago
  >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 see them resorting to this. I have to wonder if it's in part because of how far behind they are in terms of phones/tablets. 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.

tzs 15y ago

The discussion months ago was about x86, I believe. According to the article, "For non-ARM systems, Microsoft requires that Custom Mode be enabled". I suspect that it will turn out that Microsoft knows that Apple and Android have built a possibly insurmountable lead on ARM and so will be subsidizing the hardware that ships with Windows 8 in order to lower the price to the consumer to try to buy market share. For obvious reasons they would not want people who want an Android tablet to see an Android tablet for, say, $400, and a Windows 8 tablet from the same manufacturer with identical hardware specs for $300 (because of Microsoft's subsidy) that they could buy and then put Android on.

silon3 15y ago

So, no running Windows under Linux VM ->no Windows for me.