On Tuesday 04 October 2011 02:18 in alt.comp.linux, somebody identifying
Post by y***@gmx.netOn Mon, 03 Oct 2011 01:27:44 +0200, Aragorn
Post by AragornHowever, the OEM brandname home and office PCs that come
pre-installed with Microsoft Windows will require there to be the
proposed UEFI with the signed bootsector thing in order for Microsoft
to sanction the OEM manufacturers with the use of "Designed for
Windows 8" stickers. This is Microsoft's official statement on the
matter, but also their only statement so far. Like I said, they
can't afford to ignore the other customers.
That brings me to another point. If a user would buy an OEM version of
W8 will it be still an option or will he be required to purchase
conform hardware.
Well, I presume that they would still be offering versions of Windows 8
for non-UEFI machines. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot if
they were to insist on UEFI for those machines as well, because not
everyone might be willing to conform to that demand.
I don't know really. With Microsoft, everything's possible, as long as
it's treacherous enough.
Post by y***@gmx.netI know you don't use Windows but that came to my mind. Right now i do
own a OEM version and its already limited to the hardware one uses. It
will change perhaps how one build the pc of choice.
In the end, as a Linux User you still can buy a Linux powered pc. At
least i think you can. How much control does MS really have over the
OEM market as a whole?
Their control here rests mainly with the brandname PCs. They have only
limited control over independent component vendors.
Post by y***@gmx.netPost by AragornUEFI does have certain technical advantages over a legacy BIOS, but
not everything supports it yet - think of the Xen bare metal
hypervisor, for instance - and progress should not come at the cost
of anticompetitive measures, which is what this technology is now
being abused for.
Yes i am aware of that. I am currently debating with myself which
empire is more evil. The Gates empire or the Jobs empire.
Definitely the former. Apple isn't trying to be a monopolist. They
view their own hardware as being artistic creations, and they appeal
to "the elite" feeling.
This "elite feeling" is the strongest in the USA and possibly Canada.
In the rest of the world, Apple is mainly used - at least, when we're
talking of the computers - by people who are into specific branches of
work, like desktop publishing or the music/multimedia industry. By
contrast, in the USA and Canada, owning an Apple computer makes
you "special".
Microsoft is an entirely different beast. They don't supply any
computer hardware of their own making, and so they're trying to
dominate the entire x86 market. They do offer Windows for other
platforms as well - again, speaking of computers, not of smartphones
and tablets and such - but they've never been able to compete with
what's natively supplied on such other hardware - think PPC, think
Alpha, think MIPS - because those are all UNIX operating systems, and
UNIX is vastly superior to anything Microsoft can ever come up with.
The x86 market however is an open market. x86 has always been an open
platform - which is why Intel devised the IA64 (Itanium) architecture
as a closed architecture again, as Intel too is a monopolist - and
historically, Microsoft has always had somewhat of a stronghold on that
market ever since the time of DOS.
They even deliberately sabotaged Windows 3.x in such a way that it would
(deliberately) crash if the underlying DOS versions happened to be
DR-DOS instead of MS-DOS or IBM PC-DOS. Windows would simply do a
version check on the underlying DOS and would, if it wasn't
an "approved" DOS version, start a timer with random value, which upon
its expiry would then hang the computer.
Post by y***@gmx.netTricky question really. Normally i welcome change but it is uncertain
in whoms advantage it will go. It appears that MS views any pc as
their pc and therefore can act unilaterly on imposing rules.
That is their philosophy, yes. They consider themselves to be the sole
rulers of the x86 market and they tolerate no competition. Even not
when said competition was never even intended as competition, as in the
case of GNU/Linux.
GNU/Linux was developed as an alternative to proprietary UNIX. Windows
was completely irrelevant in that picture. But Microsoft wants to
eradicate it nevertheless, because GNU/Linux is Free & Open Source
Software, and it's that which is the thorn in Microsoft's eye. They
don't want you to be free. They want to be able to dictate what you
can and cannot do with your own machine. You have to be their slave.
Post by y***@gmx.netFor some reason i fell that Linux will have a harder stands.
Oh, they're not going to destroy GNU/Linux. There's not a chance in the
world that they can get away with that. Nobody owns GNU/Linux. It's
Free Software. It's a people's movement, not a corporate initiative.
Besides, everybody who's a professional in IT - and I do mean a real
professional, not an MCSE - knows that UNIX is a far more reliable, far
more powerful and far more mature operating system than Windows will
ever be. Most of the world's supercomputers run GNU/Linux. IBM
mainframes can run GNU/Linux, and on the bare metal, not emulated.
GNU/Linux is everywhere. That's what makes Microsoft so rabid.
Post by y***@gmx.netPost by AragornPost by y***@gmx.netIt may really provide a more secure option.
That depends on what it is that is being "secured". ;-)
Thats was an assumption. I have no proof of that :) It would be
desirable to have a secure box that you can not 'hack' but my guess is
that UEFI will not provide that what i am thinking off.
UEFI was not developed specifically with security in mind. It's just a
more modern BIOS replacement. It has advantages, but the alleged
security thing is only Microsoft and Intel's "conspiracy" to re-enforce
their monopoly.
Post by y***@gmx.netPost by AragornPost by y***@gmx.netSo far, you can break in pretty much any system if you sit in front
of a pc. If you can remove the battery you can reset the bios and
thus lets you boot with whatever you want.
Not sure if the new technology will change that actually.
No, that will remain the same. If you have access to the physical
hardware, then you /pwn/ the machine. The main difference between
the legacy BIOS and UEFI is that UEFI runs in protected mode, like a
miniature operating system, and is more extended and extensible.
I have to read into it since UEFI has some other implactions that seem
not entirely about security in the sense i am thinking off.
No, UEFI was not designed for security. It was designed to offer better
integration between hardware and software, functionalitywise. The
security thing is a scam.
You can take a kitchen knife and turn it into a weapon. That's what
Microsoft and Intel have now done with UEFI.
Post by y***@gmx.netPost by AragornPost by y***@gmx.netI do use both systems but tend to regard Linux as the better option.
But that doesn't change the problem for the masses. Nerds will
always find a way to run dual, but how will the masses do it.
Unless the masses will abandon the pc and move to the portable units.
One possible way would be to flash such a machine's UEFI firmware
with something like CoreBoot, which is an UEFI-like BIOS replacement
that pretty much works the same way, except that it's an Open Source
firmware based on a Linux kernel. So it will definitely not disallow
installing GNU/Linux on the machine.
However, doing that on an OEM machine will most likely void the
manufacturer's warranty, and not too many people would be so
adventurous as to flash the UEFI themselves.
True, if you own an OEM pc you out of luck. No linux for you.
Or any other OS for that matter.
That's why I never buy OEM PCs. ;-)
Post by y***@gmx.netDoesn't Apple has a policy that voids their warranty if you install
any other OS?
I'm not sure. At first, BootCamp - which allows you to install
Microsoft Windows (or another operating system) on an Intel-based
MacIntosh - was considered a hack, but if my information is correct
then Apple are now even officially supporting BootCamp.
The other way around, i.e. installing OSX on a non-MacIntosh computer -
i.e. the so-called HackIntosh - is illegal, though.
Post by y***@gmx.netWe are in the grib of two empires. How will it be in 10 years?
Ten years? I don't even think that far ahead anymore. ;-) For all I
know, homo sapiens could easily blow up Planet Earth before those ten
years are up. ;-)
Okay, maybe that's a little far-fetched, but the total arsenal of
nuclear weapons currently stored (and still being developed) in the
world is enough to blow the entire planet to smithereens more than 7
times, or annihilate everything on the face of the planet 28 times.
Furthermore, earth is obviously undergoing some changes at the
geological and climatological level; so is the sun, and that's part of
why things are changing here on earth in terms of climate. (Man-made
global warming is a political scam, but I guess you knew that. ;-))
So who knows what will be, ten years from now? I have no idea,
really. ;-)
Post by y***@gmx.netPost by AragornI don't have all the answers. I guess we'll just have to see what
gives, and whether any antitrust committees will put this newest
anticompetitive maneuver under their microscope. Personally, I am
hoping that they do. If nothing else, then at the very least it will
buy the FLOSS community some time to counter the threat to our freedom.
Would be interesting to see who eventually will push a case against
MS. I haven't read anything about the reaction from OEM like IBM or
any other manufacture that sells linux pc/servers.
No, I suspect that if such a litigation is started, then it will most
likely come from a government, and I'm betting that Neelie Kroes, the
European Commissioner on Fair Competition, isn't going to like
Microsoft's newest monopolist tactic too much.
Arrogance always comes before the fall. And Microsoft seems incapable
of being anything other than arrogant, even though they've already
taken the fall several times.
I for one am eager to see them hit the dirt soon again. ;-)
--
Aragorn
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)