
Microsoft mandating Secure Boot on ARM, making Linux installs difficult - shawndumas
http://arstechnica.com/#!/business/news/2012/01/microsoft-mandating-secure-boot-on-arm-making-linux-installs-difficult.ars
======
brudgers
Previous discussion here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3458679>

------
skrebbel
Isn't all this fuzz just Microsoft's history hunting hem?

I mean, where's the Ars Technica article about how it's not possible to
install Android on an iPhone? So unfair!

Nearly all phones and tablets (typically the devices with ARM cpus, which must
be Microsoft's reasoning too) only run the OS they came with. Surely phones
and tablets with Windows on them aren't the exception.

~~~
astrodust
If Microsoft made their own hardware, this comparison might be more apt.
Nobody's complaining you can't run Linux on 360 out of the box.

~~~
jimbobimbo
This is not a good argument: you cannot buy a tablet without operating system
and install something later - you buy the package of tablet hardware with
operating system.

How I see what Microsoft does now, they simply say to vendors: if you want to
sell your hardware with our system, these are our requirements. Given that
vendor can sell same tablet with, say, Android, what's the problem here? They
won't be allowed to put Windows logo on the tablet, but I guess it's not a big
deal.

Another thing that bothers me in this media noise about "Linux lockout":
vendors are locking down their tablets and phones right now, without any
Microsoft help - where's the public outcry?

~~~
nitrogen
_vendors are locking down their tablets and phones right now, without any
Microsoft help - where's the public outcry?_

There's a difference between a hardware manufacturer voluntarily choosing to
lock down its own hardware (which is bad), and an independent operating system
vendor forcing hardware manufacturers to lock down their hardware (which is
anticompetitive).

Besides, there's plenty of outcry about locked-down phones and tablets, which
is why HTC announced that they are no longer locking the bootloader on their
devices.

~~~
jimbobimbo
Look, Microsoft does not prohibit Samsung selling their Galaxy Tab with
whatever Samsung wants to ship. They prohibit Samsung selling their Galaxy Tab
with Windows 8 ARM pre-installed on it. This - tablet AND Windows 8 - is a ONE
product, hence you cannot divide h/w vendor and OS vendor. This is as simple
as that. Samsung is free to not to ship tablets with Windows 8 ARM - how is
that anti-competitive?

ARM devices are not supposed to be fiddled with by customers in their current
state, PCs are. This business model is a status quo right now, like it or not,
and Microsoft plays by the rules. The game is different in PCs and Microsoft
has a different position on lockdown there.

~~~
nitrogen
There are two critical differences between Microsoft's lockdown and the status
quo of the ARM tablet market:

1\. The status quo in the tablet market is for hardware manufacturers to
_decide_ whether to lock down their boot loader. Microsoft (who is not a
hardware manufacturer) would _force_ hardware manufacturers to lock the boot
loader of any ARM devices running Windows 8.

2\. Not all ARM devices are tablets and phones. ARM-based netbooks (i.e.
miniature general-purpose PCs) have been available for a long time, and
there's an expectation that you can install whatever OS you want on a general-
purpose PC. Microsoft's ARM lockdown rules (as quoted on the previous HN
discussion of the subject) would apply to devices that people expect to be
able to customize.

~~~
jimbobimbo
1 - Yes, Microsoft will force vendor... if vendor wants to ship their device
with Microsoft OS. That's how they structure their deal with vendor. I
seriously fail to see the problem here: Windows 8 ARM doesn't even exist as a
commercial product and all vendors are happily shipping Android devices left
and right. So, come Windows 8 ARM tomorrow - what, Android will suddenly cease
to exist? Does Microsoft provision prohibit vendor from shipping same/similar
hardware without logo with other OS installed? This happens right now with
phones: same hardware goes for both Android and Windows Phone, no questions
asked.

In my opinion, this whole "logo requirements" thing is blown out of a
proportion: there's no commercial product with Windows 8 ARM, almost all
Android devices are locked down, yet Microsoft gets all the heat.

2 - Presence of a keyboard doesn't make toy device a lesser toy with same toy
rules applied. Besides, my $20 says that the moment we see MacBook Air on ARM
or Windows 8 ARM netbook, we'll see Google revitalizing their Chromebook story
or shoveling Android onto netbook devices (ASUS Transformer anyone?) and
vendors happily supporting them.

------
nodata
Interesting. I wonder what stopped them mandating this on x86? (Intel _cough_
)

~~~
wmf
Windows 7, actually. It isn't signed.

~~~
drivebyacct2
And what happens when Windows 9 for ARM comes out and it's signed with a new
set of keys that existing locked-down ARM netbooks don't have?

~~~
wmf
Why would that happen? Why would MS deny themselves that upgrade revenue?

------
sukuriant
Just a thought with regard to ARM hardware. Don't most Win7 slates on the
market have an ARM alternative that runs Android? If that's the case, that
means that manufacturers are already providing two different versions of the
slates on the market: amd64 and arm; and, that means that manufacturers are
already making special modifications just to provide to both markets.

Given this information, why would it not be possible, even likely, for
manufacturers to continue to do this with Win8 and Android? Have slightly
different hardware and sell both. Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't you run a
more hardcore linux on an android device? I believe I've seen an original G1
running ubuntu (not a hardcore linux, but moreso than android).

~~~
slowpoke
I think it's besides the point that there are alternatives. Locked down
hardware should be universally frowned upon, no matter who is trying to
control it - whether that's Microsoft, Apple, or anyone else. It's downright
sickening to see this being accepted at all. There are no - I repeat, _NO_ \-
valid reasons to lock down hardware. It's anti-competitive, it's malicious and
most of all it's an affront to Freedom. I also find it quite sad that people
(with RMS among them) predicted this years, if not decades ago, and people
called them _paranoid_.

We need to fight this. Do not buy locked down hardware. Boycott businesses and
corporations pushing this. Tell the hardware suppliers that you will not take
this. Use free operating systems and hardware whenever and where-ever at all
possible. Pursue other people to do the same.

Finally, _disregard laws_ which forbid you to circumvent, render ineffective
or deactivate these kinds of restrictions. Spread ways to do this if you can,
anonymously. Once information is out there, it cannot be subdued again.

------
drivebyacct2
It's really disappointing to see the _same_ people commenting here with the
same responses as on the original discussion (with the ARM revelation), with
the same holes in their logic, just reiterating it, sure that if they repeat
themselves they will sound more right.

There's more (and better) discussion on the original post:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3458679>

------
wavephorm
Sigh. So why doesn't the Linux community just man-up, and start backing Linux-
oriented hardware manufacturers? This pansy whiny attitude from the Linux
community got tiresome 10 years ago. Today, it's just absurd.

Please just quit whining, and quit trying to "make Microsoft our bitch", and
start supporting hardware companies that are already on your side, and
completely ignore Microsoft and hardware companies that bow to them.

~~~
marshray
Because economies of scale mean that commodity hardware is vastly less
expensive and more available than special-purpose hardware.

The number of people who set out to run specifically Linux on a tablet is
vanishingly small. I say this as one of them.

~~~
astrodust
The commodity components used to assemble a tablet are vastly less expensive
than they would be if not used by so many other manufacturers.

Where's the Raspberry Pi of tablets?

~~~
wmf
There are a ton of craptablets based on Rockchip SoCs. Even so, a craptablet
running "real Linux" would probably cost more than the equivalent Android
version.

~~~
astrodust
The demoscene people do some really amazing work with some very basic
hardware, so why can't that kind of talent be applied to making a really
ripping Linux tablet?

