5 ms·

>Given that Microsoft has already moved to ban Linux from ARM devices at the UEFI level.. Uhh, Microsoft cannot and hasn't done anything like that. They can't

>Given that Microsoft has already moved to ban Linux from ARM devices at the UEFI level.. Uhh, Microsoft cannot and hasn't done anything like that. They can't stop Android tablets from shipping can they? They're more likely going to subsidize Windows RT tablets by charging a smaller license fee, and trying to compensate that with the money from Windows App Store/Bing/Music etc.which they lose if users are allowed to change the OS. That's like saying Microsoft banned all other consoles, just because they have a locked bootloader on the XBox.

fpgeek 14y ago
Microsoft is at the very least trying to ban dual-booting of Windows RT tablets. To me, that is very significant. Also, Microsoft certainly can provide OEMs financial incentives for not making Android tablets. As you note, they're already talking about subsidizing Windows RT devices (one of the justifications for blocking dual-booting) and Microsoft has done worse before...
- recoiledsnake 14y ago
  I do not know why there is this expectation that if something runs Windows it should be able to run other OSes. First of all this is not Windows, and none of the millions of Windows programs will run on it. Why should Microsoft be denied the freedom to do the same things that Apple is succeeding very well with(and supposedly killing MS in the post-PC world, if you see posts on here) ?
  - fpgeek 14y ago
    Some of us think that Apple shouldn't be permitted to do some of those things either (e.g. banning side-loading and locked bootloaders).
  - koeselitz 14y ago
    The expectation was set by Microsoft. This is the first time they've made this move to eliminate dual booting entirely. They are making other unprecedented (for them) moves on the ARM platform in relation to JIT compilation and the other restrictions which make Firefox an impossibility. Imposing these kinds of limitations has never been Microsoft's way before. Above, I noted that they seem to believe this is a battleground; I stand by that statement. Microsoft seems to have made the conscious decision to emulate Apple in locking down ARM in a way that will benefit them. This is not a value judgement; it's an assessment of what seems to be their intention. It may be wholly within their rights, but it's hard to argue that it isn't something of a change for them.
jeza 14y ago
If all they're doing is charging a smaller licensing fee then they haven't lost anything if the user switches to another OS.
koeselitz 14y ago
Sorry if I wasn't clear. Microsoft has actually tried to require that any ARM devices on which Win8 runs cannot ever run Linux. The difference between this and the XBox is that Microsoft doesn't actually manufacture any ARM devices; and moreover Windows as an operating system is more ubiquitous than the XBox firmware. They are clearly intending to use their market share to eliminate Linux on ARM devices. I can see how people might say this is their right, but it's hard to deny that it's their intention, I think - even if you concede (though I'm not sure I'm willing to) that that intention is ancillary to security concerns.

fpgeek 14y ago

Microsoft is at the very least trying to ban dual-booting of Windows RT tablets. To me, that is very significant. Also, Microsoft certainly can provide OEMs financial incentives for not making Android tablets. As you note, they're already talking about subsidizing Windows RT devices (one of the justifications for blocking dual-booting) and Microsoft has done worse before...

recoiledsnake 14y ago
I do not know why there is this expectation that if something runs Windows it should be able to run other OSes. First of all this is not Windows, and none of the millions of Windows programs will run on it. Why should Microsoft be denied the freedom to do the same things that Apple is succeeding very well with(and supposedly killing MS in the post-PC world, if you see posts on here) ?
- fpgeek 14y ago
  Some of us think that Apple shouldn't be permitted to do some of those things either (e.g. banning side-loading and locked bootloaders).
- koeselitz 14y ago
  The expectation was set by Microsoft. This is the first time they've made this move to eliminate dual booting entirely. They are making other unprecedented (for them) moves on the ARM platform in relation to JIT compilation and the other restrictions which make Firefox an impossibility. Imposing these kinds of limitations has never been Microsoft's way before. Above, I noted that they seem to believe this is a battleground; I stand by that statement. Microsoft seems to have made the conscious decision to emulate Apple in locking down ARM in a way that will benefit them. This is not a value judgement; it's an assessment of what seems to be their intention. It may be wholly within their rights, but it's hard to argue that it isn't something of a change for them.

jeza 14y ago

If all they're doing is charging a smaller licensing fee then they haven't lost anything if the user switches to another OS.

koeselitz 14y ago

Sorry if I wasn't clear. Microsoft has actually tried to require that any ARM devices on which Win8 runs cannot ever run Linux. The difference between this and the XBox is that Microsoft doesn't actually manufacture any ARM devices; and moreover Windows as an operating system is more ubiquitous than the XBox firmware. They are clearly intending to use their market share to eliminate Linux on ARM devices. I can see how people might say this is their right, but it's hard to deny that it's their intention, I think - even if you concede (though I'm not sure I'm willing to) that that intention is ancillary to security concerns.