4 ms·

It's my opinion that you should look deeper into the issues than just skimming it before throwing thousands of dollars away. First, Microsoft has mandated(as m

It's my opinion that you should look deeper into the issues than just skimming it before throwing thousands of dollars away. First, Microsoft has mandated(as much as they can mandate to OEMs without violating antitrust!) that in order to receive Windows 8 logo certification, the OEM must provide a way for a physically present user to turn off UEFI secure boot in the setup menu and for that user to be able to add remove signing keys(including removing Microsoft's key!) at their will. Coming to ARM and Windows RT, perhaps your antitrust inquiry might want to look at the elephant in the HN discussion - Apple - first, instead of being laughed out of the courtroom about picking on a platform with 0% marketshare compared to a platform which does the same thing with ~80% marketshare and >90% profit share. Coming to actual meaningful things that can be accomplished for F/OSS desktop, you might want to consider reading the Red Hat blog post about secure boot. OEMs are willing to add signing keys of other players, but no one is interested in starting or running an operation that can sign F/OSS kernels with their key(after checking if that it's not malware). Perhaps your few K$ might be better spent on such a nonprofit organization or division of the Linux foundation instead of throwing it at lawyers? Just my thoughts.

beagle3 14y ago
> Microsoft has mandated(as much as they can mandate to OEMs without violating antitrust!) And similarly, everyone can install the browser of their choice on Windows. But it was still an antitrust violation, because it was, in effect, leveraging a monopoly in one market (Operating Systems) to produce gains in another (Browsers). This is along the same lines, except it is using a monopoly in the Operating Systems market to farther same monopoly. > picking on a platform with 0% marketshare compared to a platform which does the same thing with ~80% marketshare and >90% profit share. There's a huge difference here; Apple makes both the software and the hardware. Microsoft makes software and forces hardware makers to comply. And no one would even care about that requirement, if it weren't for their desktop OS monopoly. Again, leveraging monopoly in one market to farther gains (limit competition) in another. It's not the 0% marketshare I care about. It's the monopoly abuse. And I don't think anyone has a reasonable legal complaint against Xbox360 not running Linux even if it were 90% of the console market. Apple sells (Hardware+Software) they make themselves. Xbox360 is (Hardware+Software) Microsoft makes themselves. This is NOT the situation in the PC or non-apple phone or non-apple tablet market. > OEMs are willing to add signing keys of other players, but no one is interested in starting or running an operation that can sign F/OSS kernels with their key(after checking if that it's not malware). Microsoft charging $100 for certifying something is not malware is a joke. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, it is much more likely that they are after pirate OEM Win7 activations. If I was a malware distributor, I would make sure that I submit - directly and indirectly - hundreds of bootloaders and kernels, many of them exploitable through buffer overflows or similar tactics. I've been burned too many times with hardware that supposedly worked but turned out to only work well under windows (With bad ACPI kernel tables, and other such stuff), to trust the theory that everything will work out well. The only way to fight this is legally. > Perhaps your few K$ might be better spent on such a nonprofit organization or division of the Linux foundation instead of throwing it at lawyers? Just my thoughts. I don't think so. EFF and ACLU, perhaps. edit: added note about xbox360
- cooldeal 14y ago
  >This is along the same lines, except it is using a monopoly in the Operating Systems market to farther same monopoly. None of the millions of apps written for DOS and Windows will ever run on Windows RT. How is that leveraging a monopoly? Doesn't your argument apply to Windows Phone too? >There's a huge difference here; Apple makes both the software and the hardware. Microsoft makes software and forces hardware makers to comply. Why would you want the government to exclusively punish the software OS makers who don't sell hardware with that software? So, a company making software that is open to running on hardware made by different companies should be burdened with additional restrictions that companies like Apple are not? Sounds like a nice way to kill the whole concept competing on hardware(which drove down PC prices in the latter 80s). So the lesson here for MS is to go with Windows RT only on the Surface and follow Apple's model? After all there is Android for the OEMs(HTC and LG just dropped out due to bad sales). >Microsoft charging $100 for certifying something is not malware is a joke. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, it is much more likely that they are after pirate OEM Win7 activations. Perhaps, they're not mutually exclusive with rootkits. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/study-rootkits-target-pirated-copies-of-windows-xp/9223?tag=mantle_skin;content http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/study-rootkits-target-pir... And maybe you missed the memo that UEFI secure boot must be able to be turned off by the user? The pirates can simply disable it. >If I was a malware distributor, I would make sure that I submit - directly and indirectly - hundreds of bootloaders and kernels, many of them exploitable through buffer overflows or similar tactics. Good luck with that, I am sure the requirements will be like the iOS app store, requiring a credit card and a tax id which they can track across all your accounts. One piece of malicious software detected will lead to the keys of all your submissions revoked. >I've been burned too many times with hardware that supposedly worked but turned out to only work well under windows (With bad ACPI kernel tables, and other such stuff), to trust the theory that everything will work out well. Just turn off the secure boot? Too hard to go into UEFI setup and turn this off? http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2011/09/26/secure-boot.png http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2011/09/26/secure-boot.png >The only way to fight this is legally. I can understand why bright kids these days want to be lawyers these days instead of going into the tech space. What are you trying to fight legally on what grounds? Windows RT secure boot or Windows 8 UEFI requirements too? How is it Microsoft's fault that OS vendor don't want to bother to create a mechanism to sign kernels with their keys that the OEMs are perfectly willing to add and if not, the user can add themselves?

beagle3 14y ago

> Microsoft has mandated(as much as they can mandate to OEMs without violating antitrust!) And similarly, everyone can install the browser of their choice on Windows. But it was still an antitrust violation, because it was, in effect, leveraging a monopoly in one market (Operating Systems) to produce gains in another (Browsers). This is along the same lines, except it is using a monopoly in the Operating Systems market to farther same monopoly. > picking on a platform with 0% marketshare compared to a platform which does the same thing with ~80% marketshare and >90% profit share. There's a huge difference here; Apple makes both the software and the hardware. Microsoft makes software and forces hardware makers to comply. And no one would even care about that requirement, if it weren't for their desktop OS monopoly. Again, leveraging monopoly in one market to farther gains (limit competition) in another. It's not the 0% marketshare I care about. It's the monopoly abuse. And I don't think anyone has a reasonable legal complaint against Xbox360 not running Linux even if it were 90% of the console market. Apple sells (Hardware+Software) they make themselves. Xbox360 is (Hardware+Software) Microsoft makes themselves. This is NOT the situation in the PC or non-apple phone or non-apple tablet market. > OEMs are willing to add signing keys of other players, but no one is interested in starting or running an operation that can sign F/OSS kernels with their key(after checking if that it's not malware). Microsoft charging $100 for certifying something is not malware is a joke. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, it is much more likely that they are after pirate OEM Win7 activations. If I was a malware distributor, I would make sure that I submit - directly and indirectly - hundreds of bootloaders and kernels, many of them exploitable through buffer overflows or similar tactics. I've been burned too many times with hardware that supposedly worked but turned out to only work well under windows (With bad ACPI kernel tables, and other such stuff), to trust the theory that everything will work out well. The only way to fight this is legally. > Perhaps your few K$ might be better spent on such a nonprofit organization or division of the Linux foundation instead of throwing it at lawyers? Just my thoughts. I don't think so. EFF and ACLU, perhaps. edit: added note about xbox360

cooldeal 14y ago
>This is along the same lines, except it is using a monopoly in the Operating Systems market to farther same monopoly. None of the millions of apps written for DOS and Windows will ever run on Windows RT. How is that leveraging a monopoly? Doesn't your argument apply to Windows Phone too? >There's a huge difference here; Apple makes both the software and the hardware. Microsoft makes software and forces hardware makers to comply. Why would you want the government to exclusively punish the software OS makers who don't sell hardware with that software? So, a company making software that is open to running on hardware made by different companies should be burdened with additional restrictions that companies like Apple are not? Sounds like a nice way to kill the whole concept competing on hardware(which drove down PC prices in the latter 80s). So the lesson here for MS is to go with Windows RT only on the Surface and follow Apple's model? After all there is Android for the OEMs(HTC and LG just dropped out due to bad sales). >Microsoft charging $100 for certifying something is not malware is a joke. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, it is much more likely that they are after pirate OEM Win7 activations. Perhaps, they're not mutually exclusive with rootkits. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/study-rootkits-target-pirated-copies-of-windows-xp/9223?tag=mantle_skin;content http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/study-rootkits-target-pir... And maybe you missed the memo that UEFI secure boot must be able to be turned off by the user? The pirates can simply disable it. >If I was a malware distributor, I would make sure that I submit - directly and indirectly - hundreds of bootloaders and kernels, many of them exploitable through buffer overflows or similar tactics. Good luck with that, I am sure the requirements will be like the iOS app store, requiring a credit card and a tax id which they can track across all your accounts. One piece of malicious software detected will lead to the keys of all your submissions revoked. >I've been burned too many times with hardware that supposedly worked but turned out to only work well under windows (With bad ACPI kernel tables, and other such stuff), to trust the theory that everything will work out well. Just turn off the secure boot? Too hard to go into UEFI setup and turn this off? http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2011/09/26/secure-boot.png http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2011/09/26/secure-boot.png >The only way to fight this is legally. I can understand why bright kids these days want to be lawyers these days instead of going into the tech space. What are you trying to fight legally on what grounds? Windows RT secure boot or Windows 8 UEFI requirements too? How is it Microsoft's fault that OS vendor don't want to bother to create a mechanism to sign kernels with their keys that the OEMs are perfectly willing to add and if not, the user can add themselves?