Linux Group Files Complaint With EU Over SecureBoot

[Sonadow]

Monopoly can also be that the big company use some methods which seem fair but eventually lure the market to benefit the company much more than the rival, or can even hut the rivals.
.

So you start up a successful business just to throw tidbits to your rivals by introducing things that your rivals can leverage and help them catch up to you? Are you even sane? Do you even know how to do business?

All businesses in the world seek to benefit at their competitor's expense. This is business 101.

[nullone]

Sounds like a dream already comes true

Microsoft doesn't go into your home and modify YOUR PC to be locked... You most likely buy it already locked, your fault... Choose an unlocked one. Vote with your money.



So, what's the difference EXACTLY? If both come with stickers saying "locked to MS OS" they're the same shit, different OS. Make yourself a favor and choose a non-locked PC.

If we can CHOOSE what we prefer from the market, a responsive and smart market, then there will no complain.

BUT, BUT, BUT, this market is money driven, and goes where can give it most money back with least risk and invest.

You can call it a blind and greedy market.
It is easily utilized by big players, not small fish who want a computer for use at their will or freedom or benefit with their awareness.

We are no in a full-developed and open market yet.

[Ramiliez]

Lastly, Linux users take pride in being superior to the Windows-using herd, so the only reason they are complaining are either
a) it's Microsoft, and any anti-Microsoft news is always great to spread more FUD
b) they are too incompetent to change an option in the UEFI menu (barring broken UEFI implementations which the OEM should be 100% responsible for) and just want to use (a) to spread more FUD.

Either way I see it, it's FUD, FUD, FUD and more FUD.

Actually the problem is that average joe user will be hampered by Secure boot while not benefiting from any security associated with Secureboot not to mention lazy OEMs and their fucked up implementations

If you dislike Linux fans defending Linux then i suggest to stop visiting this site and contribute to MSDN forums

[nullone]

Tell me why you are not still in DOS era

So you start up a successful business just to throw tidbits to your rivals by introducing things that your rivals can leverage and help them catch up to you? Are you even sane? Do you even know how to do business?

All businesses in the world seek to benefit at their competitor's expense. This is business 101.

GOOD to know you know business 101.

It is not about how to do business, but how to limit overgrowing business to protect the consumers like me to reserve some freedom to choose other products, and one method is to protect the rivals to some degree.

Tell me why you are not living old AT&T ages, or why you are not using MS-DOS any more?

If a dominating company can, why they still spend billions of dollars to change their products and try to please the consumers in the way they think will work?

This is public interest 101, or market protection 101.

Though it is sad that it is how business works, we, as the consumers, shall pursue our own benefit, not give up and think in the shoes of those big companies.

Please rise your sight, and look higher and further.

If you are working for those big ones or you are one of them, ignore what I said.
If you are not, please think about what you really need, and people like you.

As you implied, big ones think more about their benefit, not yours.
So we shall do the same thing, not try to understand their 101.

[brosis]

The EU fined MS big over IE because they believed that Microsoft was not playing fair by not informing users that alternatives existed. Honestly, that kind of flawed judgement should not even have had its day on the courts; anybody who uses the Internet will have heard of things like Chrome (especially when accessing Google.com; Google just loves to advertise its Chrome browser in every search) and Firefox.

When EU fined MS, MS only browser was IE and Firefox was trying hard to survive.
MS has flooded internet with own specifications (Embrace Extend Extinguish, genuine microsoft technology)

Chrome appeared way after the said fine was charged, in time when IE was still preinstalled without a choice.
They were forced to provide browser chooser, which , by the way, is removed now yet again.

This all leads to the case that Personal Computer takes special place, unlike proprietary platforms.
IBM was first to bite the dust with MCI bus. Then, IBM migrated into what is microsoft and tried to survive as monopoly in form of the OS.
Still,.. "personal computers" are very special.

If microsoft locks in, and its what they are doing, the only "personal computer" will be the system running open OS, such as Linux.
"Personal" meaning, the person using and owning it has full access to personalization and modification. An open home computing platform.

This is not the same case with Secure Boot. Microsoft has already clearly mandated AND publicly announced its requirements that cryptographic keys in Secure Boot must be manageable at the UEFI level by the user if they want to change it. As far as obligations are concerned, Microsoft has already informed its users that Secure Boot is activated in a machine preloaded with Windows 8, and they have every ability to disable or modify Secure Boot any way they see fit if they are so inclined.

So they build a fortification island, lock in everything inside and provide a bridge (off switch).
The presence of this island is condition to have "microsoft certified", which means discount price for OEM install, which means - either OEM agree to what MS asks, or OEM are out of business due to high MS install price, because 99% of PC have windows preinstalled - hardly anyone will buy without windows, because until very recently - there was no decent gaming on other OSes.

If they remove the bridge, game over. This bridge is already removed on ARM and by default is turned on on x86, just so people get used to it. Just like the first MSDOS installs, the start button interface and now metro - where people should get used to it. No matter if they like it or not, microsoft knows the power of habits and pushes heavily on preinstalls.

Excuse me, do you actually sincerely believe in all the BS you are writing here? Or were you paid to close your eyes? If thats second case, I recommend you to stop it in your own interest. Consult Gary Kildall case for reference.

Lastly, Linux users take pride in being superior to the Windows-using herd, so the only reason they are complaining are either
a) it's Microsoft, and any anti-Microsoft news is always great to spread more FUD
b) they are too incompetent to change an option in the UEFI menu (barring broken UEFI implementations which the OEM should be 100% responsible for) and just want to use (a) to spread more FUD.

Point me at any single microsoft-free PC.
I can build a PC without ASUS, MSI, Gigabyte,... ANY OTHER BRAND. All exchangeable.
Microsoft is not exchangable. Its pushing its sticky fingers everywhere. But not by being innovative, fair and optional (like google); but by being invasive pointless dirt.
Is this FUD also?

Either way I see it, it's FUD, FUD, FUD and more FUD.

If it ever goes to court, this will be one of the handful of cases which I will fully support Microsoft and hope that they win the judgement.

Excuse me, but if you and your beloved microsoft GTFO from this planet altogether , this planet will be a much better place.

[Sonadow]

Actually the problem is that average joe user will be hampered by Secure boot while not benefiting from any security associated with Secureboot not to mention lazy OEMs and their fucked up implementations

If you dislike Linux fans defending Linux then i suggest to stop visiting this site and contribute to MSDN forums

So Linux fans are allowed to defend Linux by spreading FUD, but Microsoft users are not allowed to?

The facts have already been laid out bare by Matthew Garrett, but the bulk of Linux users just want to jump at any chance to overhype it into some kind of doomsday scenario and make MS look bad in the process. THAT is what i dislike; people with no logic launching FUD and hate wars.

[Sonadow]

So they build a fortification island, lock in everything inside and provide a bridge (off switch).
If they remove the bridge, game over. This bridge is already removed on ARM.
Excuse me, do you actually sincerely believe in all the BS you are writing here? Or were you paid to close your eyes? If thats second case, I recommend you to stop it in your own interest. Consult Gary Kildall case for reference.

YOU are the one who don't even know what you are talking about. Secure Boot IS part of the UEFI standard. the off switch IS part of the standard.

Don't even try to drag ARM into this. ARM is a totally different ball game. Bitch about Secure Boot on ARM when and only when all ARM machines are standardized to the point where it is NOT used for specialized devices and an end-user can install a copy of any ARM-based operating system onto a smartphone or tablet without any effort like how it's done in x86-land. You are just grabbing any pathetic example to reinforce your non-existent points.

The world is better off without people like you who launch hate wars on A just because it is A. Go die in a fire please.

[nullone]

Do what is right, for yourself

Actually the problem is that average joe user will be hampered by Secure boot while not benefiting from any security associated with Secureboot not to mention lazy OEMs and their fucked up implementations

If you dislike Linux fans defending Linux then i suggest to stop visiting this site and contribute to MSDN forums

Yes, I agree.

People shall have the right to use what they like.

Disliking a company or one product or one way of doing things or one manner to treat people, is NOT a sin.

Disliking people that dislike something, is also fine.

So why label those as FUD?

Do those guy know who invented FUD and is the master of FUD?
I hope he is not from the source of FUD.

[juanrga]

They clearly partner with vendors such as Dell and HP to sell "Microsoft-certified" PCs.

Partnership does not mean "Microsoft PCs" they are still Dell/HP PCs and "Microsoft-certified" does not mean "Microsoft-locked". Certification means that the PC will run Microsoft OS, not that it cannot run other OSs.

If somebody wants an Arch Linux PC from Dell or whoever, they're free to plead their case.

Well Dell is a partner of Ubuntu and sells computers with Ubuntu pre-installed. HP has just launched an all-in-one with Ubuntu pre-installed. Asking for a PC with Arch Linux pre-installed is a non-issue, because this minimalist distro is aimed to users who want to maintain a strict control of what is and what is not installed in their computers during a clean install.

[brosis]

YOU are the one who don't even know what you are talking about. Secure Boot IS part of the UEFI standard. the off switch IS part of the standard.

Don't even try to drag ARM into this. ARM is a totally different ball game. Bitch about Secure Boot on ARM when and only when all ARM machines are standardized to the point where it is NOT used for specialized devices and an end-user can install a copy of any ARM-based operating system onto a smartphone or tablet without any effort like how it's done in x86-land. You are just grabbing any pathetic example to reinforce your non-existent points.

Listen up, if you want to push lock-in as a "standard", we will push it backwards up your own ass.
ARM is becoming more and more relevant player after Intel+MS have nearly destroyed it.

Soon, ARM will have 50% marketplace with x86 and be another hardware platform for personal computing.
This is the time when EU will fine your MS once more, because some users do not like handcuffs.

The world is better off without people like you who launch hate wars on A just because it is A. Go die in a fire please.

All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword