

Microsoft’s attack on Linux: The hardware way - LinuxStall
http://www.linuxstall.com/microsofts-restricts-linux-arm/

======
tzs
Blog post from 3 weeks ago, discussing topic that was already discussed here
when it was actually news.

Does not provide any new insight or perspective on the issue. It's just a
restatement of what others said (and does not cite them).

Submitted by a newly created account that appears to be the blog owner, and
has only been used to submit blog entries.

My blog spammer sense is tingling.

~~~
brudgers
Link to previous discussion: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3458679>

------
recoiledsnake
Here we go again, last time the complaint was that MS didn't force OEMs to
have the ability for users to disable secure boot on x86 machines, and there
were claims that one OEM wouldn't do that (curiously, the Linux folks wouldn't
name the OEM though).

But the news that Microsoft has made it mandatory for the OEMs to have a
disable option(even though it compromises security a bit) on x86 machines has
basically been ignored, so much that posters on various sites(including this
one) still erroneously claim it's not needed.

So now the witchhunt has shifted to ARM devices, with nary a mention of the
Kindle Fire or the Nook tablet or various other Apple and Android devices that
ship with locked bootloaders.

Looks like there is an expectation that if a device is able to run Windows, it
must be able to run Linux. I don't see any practical reason for this
expectation. MS might be counting on sales through its Win 8 app store to
subsidize the lower licensing costs on ARM devices, and hence locks down the
hardware. If anything, they're following the tablet industry trend on this.
Why isn't MS entitled to the same business model that Amazon and B&N are
using?

The article quotes MS on saying the user is in control of their PC. They
apparently mean x86 devices. ARM devices have been broadly referred to by
everyone as Post-PC devices.

Are bootloaders a bad thing? Of course there are, but this continual MS
bashing while giving Apple, Amazon, B&N and the rest a free pass is getting
old and monotonous.

~~~
rbanffy
The difference is in expectations: Apple, Amazon and Barnes & Noble all sell
hardware with their respective brands (Android is there, just very well
hidden) and software that's seamlessly integrated into the whole. If you
bought an HTC tablet with an HTC-branded OS your expectations would be
different than if you bought an HTC tablet with a Microsoft-branded OS. The
same sentiment exists regarding Android-powered (and Google-branded) phones
that still sport locked bootloaders. I have unlocked mine.

It's also a good decision to unlock your device - the Cyanogenmod version of
Android my phone now runs is orders of magnitude faster and more stable than
the stock version that came installed. I wasn't happy with the phone before
the update, but I am happy now.

~~~
brudgers
The requirement for locking is only applicable to devices which are certified
by Microsoft - i.e. only hardware bearing Microsoft's logo.

In other words, Windows branded hardware is no more locked down than one with
an Apple on it...and it may be less so.

Last I read the certification requirements - devices had to boot to UEFI by
default but could also offer a "legacy BIOS mode." And that mode was not
specified in the certification.

See my comments here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3459104>

~~~
rbanffy
> i.e. only hardware bearing Microsoft's logo.

I scrapped the "Built for Windows" adhesives off my notebook. Can I install
something else now?

> devices had to boot to UEFI by default but could also offer a "legacy BIOS
> mode.

I think this doesn't apply to most ARM devices. From your link "This
requirement is If Implemented for Server systems and applies only if a Server
system is UEFI capable." I am also not sure ARM servers have "legacy BIOSes".

