Re: Will Windows 8 OEM specs halt hobby OS dev?

[Nathan Baker]

"Nathan Baker" <nathan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OZednasSkJjz--TT...@giganews.com...
> http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3020459
>
> http://www.itworld.com/it-managementstrategy/205255/windows-8-oem-specs-may-block-linux-booting
>
> http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/5552.html
>
> Nathan.
>

This update is a really good read (including the comments section):
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/240685/linux_and_windows_8s_secure_boot_what_we_know_so_far.html

Nathan.

[Rod Pemberton]

"Nathan Baker" <nathan...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:j5u23m$meh$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
> This [UEFI] update is a really good read (including the comments section):
> [link]
>

"Microsoft's program will also require that firmware not allow
'programmatic,' or software-level, control of secure boot, as well as
stipulating that OEMs prevent any unauthorized attempts at changing the
firmware in ways 'that could compromise system integrity,' the blog post
explained."

To me that means: ... motherboard jumper ...

Do they also require a case security switch? I.e., my current PC case has a
case intrusion switch that the BIOS can be set to monitor for unauthorized
opening. They probably will ... It's one more obstacle. ;-)

"UEFI can be modified to disable secure boot, at least in theory, [...] that
it's up to OEMs to choose how to enable such capabilities."

To me that means: ... every motherboard will be different and/or unable to
disable ... Ok, yes, they do say that:

"In fact, there is no requirement that certified PC makers give users the
capability to disable UEFI secure boot, Garrett notes. And not only that,
but 'we've already been informed by hardware vendors that some hardware
will not have this option.'"

The nightmare begins! Now, you must extract and clone MS keys to install
Linux, ReactOS, FreeDOS, OpenDOS, CP/M, OS/2, and even their own old OSes:
Win95/98/SE/XP/2K/Vista/7 ... How many of you still have XP? 98?

"Microsoft's overall message was to assuage concerns by asserting as
Microsoft program manager Tony Mangefeste did, that 'At the end of the day,
the customer is in control of their PC.'"

Is that a breath of fresh air at MS? Or, is it just word games again? Or,
is it biased statements which depends on ones perspective?

But the Linux guy says:
"The end user is no longer in control of their PC [due to UEFI]."

The question then becomes where does "control" of your PC start and end? At
the factory? At home? After purchase? Before installing an OS? After?
Anytime? For me, it means at any point in time I can do whatever I choose
with the PC, and that is *not* what MS is espousing will happen.


I don't see this entire UEFI debate being an issue for corporations that buy
PCs with MS pre-installed with the intent to only run MS for the life of the
machine. They won't be installing Linux on those machines, ever. I.e.,
this may be just as much about locking out non-MS OS' from the commercial OS
marketplace, as it is about protecting MS software from unauthorized copying
or virii. It seems like they are up to their old tricks of locking out
alternate OSes again, especially Linux servers. I'm wondering why MS'
lawyers would allow *any* activity that could remotely be (mis)construed as
an anti-trust violation? One change to the design of hardware, if they can
pull it off without being sued for anti-trust issues, and MS gets everything
they've fought against for years: no competitors, no illegal copying, no
virii or malware, no unauthorized patches or modifications, and they kill
off all other OSes including their old OSes. To them, it must seem like the
"holy grail" landed on their doorstep.


Another important question is how does MS or it's OEM licensed partners
install Win8? IIRC, XP was installed from DOS using special software ...


Rod Pemberton

[J G Miller]

On Wednesday, September 28th, 2011 at 12:09:25h -0400, Rod Pemberton wrote:

> I don't see this entire UEFI debate being an issue for corporations that
> buy PCs with MS pre-installed with the intent to only run MS for the
> life of the machine.

Some corporations will welcome it with open arms since it will prevent
users from running GNU/Linux from their own USB stick/disk and having
root powers on the machine, which for example allows them to manipulate
settings on the local machine from which they have been locked out, and
to sniff traffic on the local network.

[Pavolo59]

I don't think MS will be able to upturn the principles of computer
hardware market, as it's in hardware makers' best conveniente to have
also some lines of products which are good for general-purpose computing.

The Linux movement has gained a huge momentum in the last ten years, thus
it would only be unwise to give up a potentially promising share of the
market.

Besides, we are passing through a lean cows' period which is likely to
last for ten more years or so, and I can't envisage corporations and
private people being too anxious to waste yet more money to get newer
machines and OSs.

A well used modern general-purpose computer can last 10++ years these
days,while giving good performance and needing only marginal manteinance.

Thus, any authocratic move by MS is likely to backfire badly, and in the
end thing will probably change only inasmuch, and so as they stay the
same ;-)

With best regards

Paolo

[J G Miller]

On Tuesday, November 8th, 2011, at 20:12:38h +0000, Pavolo59 wrote:

> A well used modern general-purpose computer can last 10++ years these
> days,while giving good performance and needing only marginal
> manteinance.

True but remember for medium to large corporations the issue is
all about support, both for the hardware and the software.

And many corporations only tend to think about updating the
software on their desktop PCs when the end of line software
support for a particular version of Windoze or Office is announced.