40 ms·

Sure it's in vogue to say Microsoft is "finally" getting their comeuppance whenever something like this comes along, but I wonder how long they can be held resp

Sure it's in vogue to say Microsoft is "finally" getting their comeuppance whenever something like this comes along, but I wonder how long they can be held responsible for past sins. Are we really going harp on Lotus Notes, or, heaven forbid, IE6, five or ten years from now? Note that I think that the post from Microsoft is 90% self-serving. It's just a general thing I notice with Microsoft bashing.

hexasquid 13y ago
As a Windows Phone user I am just going to have to accept I will never get YouTube, G+ or Google Drive while Android and iOS users can get onenote, lync, skydrive and the Xbox companion shit.
- scholia 13y ago
  Being without Google Drive is an advantage. Dropbox and even SkyDrive are better....
beagle3 13y ago
> I wonder how long they can be held responsible for past sins. They are still threatening Android handset makers with patent lawsuits, and in fact making more money from Android patent extortion than they are from Windows phone. The whole UEFI Secure Boot requirement is designed to thwart Linux adoption under the guise of safety. It is NOT sins of the past. The only reason they're not pulling another IE6 or Lotus Notes is because they aren't as dominant now, not because they aren't as evil. (The UEFI thing is on the same league of evil, if you ask me, just not as successful)
- yuhong 13y ago
  designed?
  - sounds 13y ago
    Sure. What's your question about the threat UEFI Secure Boot poses to an open PC platform and its ability to run GPLv3 software?
    - yuhong 13y ago
      My point is I see no evidence it was deliberately designed to do so, other than on WinRT that they stupidly decided to lock down like iOS.
      - sounds 13y ago
        I'm deliberately saying "GPLv3" here. If your laptop comes preloaded with Microsoft's signing key and is also set to fast boot [1] so that you can't even get into the BIOS, your system does not have the ability to run a GPLv3 OS. You can't get into the BIOS so you can't change the fact that it refuses to run anything not signed by the Microsoft key! Yes, I know Linux is not GPLv3, but it is GPLv2 "or any later version." Also, I already know that Windows 8 has a way to get to the BIOS (hold down shift, click the restart button). Neither of those is a valid counter-argument. [1] http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/24869.html http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/24869.html
        yuhong 13y ago
        After you go into the BIOS using Win8, you should be able to disable fast boot, secure boot, change between BIOS and UEFI boot modes etc.
        sounds 13y ago
        That's what I said above.
- rubberband 13y ago
  I don't necessarily agree with the premise of your patent argument, but I think it's a valid concern, and definitely fair game. But, again, my quarrel is with people who choose to continue pouring salt on old wounds when there are many more relevant grips to bring up.
yuhong 13y ago
Personally, I wrote a blog post on the decades old MS OS/2 2.0 fiasco, just to make it clear that it was pretty seriously bad (I don't see PX00307 mentioned anywhere before I mentioned it for example), even though I know it is too late (fortunately the x64 transition went much better).

hexasquid 13y ago

As a Windows Phone user I am just going to have to accept I will never get YouTube, G+ or Google Drive while Android and iOS users can get onenote, lync, skydrive and the Xbox companion shit.

scholia 13y ago
Being without Google Drive is an advantage. Dropbox and even SkyDrive are better....

beagle3 13y ago

> I wonder how long they can be held responsible for past sins. They are still threatening Android handset makers with patent lawsuits, and in fact making more money from Android patent extortion than they are from Windows phone. The whole UEFI Secure Boot requirement is designed to thwart Linux adoption under the guise of safety. It is NOT sins of the past. The only reason they're not pulling another IE6 or Lotus Notes is because they aren't as dominant now, not because they aren't as evil. (The UEFI thing is on the same league of evil, if you ask me, just not as successful)

yuhong 13y ago
designed?
- sounds 13y ago
  Sure. What's your question about the threat UEFI Secure Boot poses to an open PC platform and its ability to run GPLv3 software?
  - yuhong 13y ago
    My point is I see no evidence it was deliberately designed to do so, other than on WinRT that they stupidly decided to lock down like iOS.
    - sounds 13y ago
      I'm deliberately saying "GPLv3" here. If your laptop comes preloaded with Microsoft's signing key and is also set to fast boot [1] so that you can't even get into the BIOS, your system does not have the ability to run a GPLv3 OS. You can't get into the BIOS so you can't change the fact that it refuses to run anything not signed by the Microsoft key! Yes, I know Linux is not GPLv3, but it is GPLv2 "or any later version." Also, I already know that Windows 8 has a way to get to the BIOS (hold down shift, click the restart button). Neither of those is a valid counter-argument. [1] http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/24869.html http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/24869.html
      - yuhong 13y ago
        After you go into the BIOS using Win8, you should be able to disable fast boot, secure boot, change between BIOS and UEFI boot modes etc.
        sounds 13y ago
        That's what I said above.
rubberband 13y ago
I don't necessarily agree with the premise of your patent argument, but I think it's a valid concern, and definitely fair game. But, again, my quarrel is with people who choose to continue pouring salt on old wounds when there are many more relevant grips to bring up.

yuhong 13y ago

Personally, I wrote a blog post on the decades old MS OS/2 2.0 fiasco, just to make it clear that it was pretty seriously bad (I don't see PX00307 mentioned anywhere before I mentioned it for example), even though I know it is too late (fortunately the x64 transition went much better).