
Microsoft Bans Linux/Android Dual-Booting on Windows 8 ARM Devices - mtgx
http://www.dailytech.com/Microsoft+Bans+LinuxAndroid+DualBooting+on+Windows+8+ARM+Devices/article23785.htm
======
mtgx
I think the real issue with this is that it stops manufacturers from bundling
Windows RT with Android. Take Asus for example. They've just made their "big"
announcement which everyone thought it would be a dual-booting Windows
RT/Android machine, and it turns out it's just Windows with the Bluestacks
program that can make it run Android apps inside Windows.

I find that pretty silly, and I don't see a real reason why they didn't just
make the machine dual-boot both Windows and Android. If users want Android
apps inside Windows, they can download Bluestacks themselves. So the only
explanation is that Microsoft is coercing manufacturers into not allowing
Android or other OS's alongside Windows.

If they are doing this now, and more Linux vendors start asking for
Microsoft's "permission" to boot their OS on the Windows machines with UEFI,
what's to stop Microsoft from denying a UEFI license to someone who's starting
to become a "real" competitor to Windows (like Android is, in some cases)?
What if Ubuntu gets to 10% market share in the next 5 years, and keeps
growing? Will they keep giving Canonical the UEFI license? What's guaranteeing
that they will, if they are already banning Android from the Windows RT
machines?

~~~
yajoe
You're absolutely right. This announcement is all about money more than OS
religion.

The expectation and Microsoft's fear was that manufacturers would take the
marketing money (i.e. the Win8 subsidy) that Microsoft is paying out the wazoo
and hedge OS bets by also including Android. Acer and Asus don't care what OS
they run so long as it keeps them in the race against Apple. They're happy to
let Microsoft pay them money to market their devices if it means they have to
include "apps" (and in this case app := OS).

Microsoft wasn't willing to subsidize devices that run Android because it
views Android as a competitor rather than an enemy-of-my-enemy. Given Apple's
clear cost advantage, it would have been interesting to see such a
Android+Win8+subsidy bet play out. Microsoft might have been able to dislodge
marketshare enough during the year that Microsoft comes out ahead next year
with SP1. Alas, the business case will slightly less interesting.

------
mjg59
The quotations say nothing of the sort. A vendor could provide a dual-boot
device providing they have an Android bootloader signed with Microsoft's
signing key, which is a service that Microsoft will be providing.

A more open question is whether any of the existing Linux vendors will be
doing this. Fedora is willing to use Microsoft's signing service for x86
because users will be able to disable the feature or enrol their own keys.
We're not willing to do that for ARM because users won't have that freedom and
so wouldn't be able to replace components like the kernel.

~~~
derrida
"...a service that Microsoft will be providing." It's now a 'service' to
unlock the 'universal' in the 'universal Turing Machine' in my hand?!

~~~
gringomorcego
a patent-pending service as well

------
ivanbernat
I've said this before and I'll say it again: Microsoft isn't doing this to ban
Ubuntu / Linux in general, but to prevent Android from spreading. With ICS
being a great OS, many (tech) folks would simply dual-boot ICS on their WinRT
devices.

~~~
silon3
Virtualization is better than dual boot anyway. MS better make it run well
virtualized.

~~~
commandar
On hardware that's powerful enough to handle virtualization well, sure.

It looks like ARM has gotten some virtualization extensions recently, but I
still have my doubts as to how pleasant the experience would be on sub 1.5GHz
processors.

------
polshaw
Along with their apparent restriction of the 'desktop' on arm, this is the
reason I lost interest in windows8 on arm. So far a linux + android solution
(like ubuntu have demonstrated) seems more powerful and very will also have
more apps to start (way to go throw away windows' advantage #1).

It seems quite short-sighted, too, as I see ARM as being a viable laptop
platform in the life of windows 8, but MS are restricting it to 'device'
status.

Also, we've known this for a long time now.

~~~
rbanffy
Windows already had no advantage - all programs would need to be rebuilt for
the new platform. That's what killed Windows NT on everything non-x86.

The only apps that will be cross-platform will be WinRT/Metro based ones.

~~~
brudgers
Metro is a set of UI guidelines, not a set of programming tools. Applications
built using the Silverlight Framework (not to be confused with the browser
plugin) should be suitable for cross platform development because CLR runs on
both platforms. CLR remains Microsoft's way of integrating the "write once,
run anywhere" philosophy within the Windows ecosystem in order to deal with
legacy issues.

~~~
jack12
Are you sure you're not describing cross-platform with Windows Phone instead
of Windows 8?

I thought for Windows 8, Microsoft is pushing WinRT as the cross-platform
solution, and that "binaries" crossing from x86/x64 to arm will work as-is for
javascript, as-is (if pure) for CLR, and with no modifications but requiring
recompilation for native (C/C++) WinRT apps.

~~~
brudgers
If you're writing in C/C++ rather than C#, then you're off the CLR ranch, so
to speak. It's like saying Java isn't portable because a program links to
custom libraries written in C.

That said, rumor has it that the next version of Windows Phone will not be
Silverlight (though XAML and Silverlight are fairly similar), but based on
WinRT.

That's a good thing because it will allow Windows Phone Apps to better
integrate Javascript.

------
gioele
Maybe it is the right time to make all this rage converge into contributions
to coreboot [1]. A free working alternative is the only practical way out of
this future kind of subjection.

Google has already contributed core for some current Ivy Bridge chipsets. It
would be nice if coreboot received more testing and development from a broader
audience.

[1] <http://coreboot.org>

~~~
McGlockenshire
Coreboot is a good thing, but it's going to be hard to succeed without
hardware vendor support, and _that_ will be hard to build unless people
actually want the product.

I work for a VAR. Our preferred vendor was one of the first to market with
motherboards that expressly supported Coreboot. We're supporters of OSS, and
so are our customers, so we figured that they'd be popular.

We sold only a handful over about two years. Our competitors didn't seem to
have much more success, as our vendor didn't continue the experiment into the
following motherboard generations.

~~~
dattaway
Shopping for coreboot devices is frustrating. Google returns products
containing pictures of legs.

------
tjoff
We've yet to see any mobile device where running another OS than the bundled
one have been anything but a nightmare. This is done everywhere, android
manufacturers constantly try to lock users in their own android shell, not to
mention apple.

These devices are not multipurpose devices, they are built for a specific
purpose and tailormade for that and nothing else. It is not in any sense
equivalent to desktop/laptop-computers. Which is kind of apparent considering
the limitations that Windows Phone, Android and iOS amount to.

Since Microsoft have expressed that secure boot must be optional on x86 it is
quite easy to justify this rationally without resorting to the popular
"typical evil Microsoft tactics" argument.

~~~
liquidsnake
Exception: HP Touchpad. ICS runs great on it.

~~~
fpgeek
I've read that the Nokia N9 also does a good job of running ICS.

Other counter examples: Boot2Gecko (runs well & generally demoed on a Samsung
Galaxy S2), Ubuntu for Android, ASUS Transformers running various Linux
distributions, ...

------
givan
Unlike on x86 where windows dominates on ARM there is a different story and
linux dominates on ARM, they can lose some market share because of this policy
but it seems that microsoft only cares to keep their old strategies no matter
what times they live in.

------
protomyth
I really don't care about the restrictions on tablets. I figure every OS will
have a tablet or two available.

What really bothers me is that ARM-based laptops come under this crud. I have
really wanted a modern day replacement for the Psion. Something that gets
great battery life and has a decent keyboard. I also want to run a BSD
(probably Open), so that is really going to make it a pain.

~~~
cryptoz
What's the difference between tablets and laptops? I don't see any differences
when it comes to the ability to dual boot. The ASUS Transformer line has been
around for a while now, showing that the line between tablet and laptop is
blurring. Also, Canonical/Ubuntu seems to be gunning for tablet market share
in the future. Do you think they'll have their own hardware?

I don't see any reason to separate out tablets and laptops when talking about
dual booting, OS concerns, etc. A tablet is just a laptop with a touch screen
and optional rather than mandatory keyboard.

~~~
mhurron
> What's the difference between tablets and laptops?

Usage patterns. A laptop is just a mobile general purpose computer, to
restrict it by restricting say it's OS, you have removed the general purpose
nature of the device and this is a loss of functionality.

A tablet on the other hand is an appliance. It has more in common with your
toaster, microwave, refrigerator or your DVD player. It is intended to
basically do one thing and hopefully do it well. Just like no one really
complains that you can't toast bread with a refrigerator, having a tablet sort
of locked to one OS isn't exactly that strange of a proposal.

~~~
dagw
But what about the new line of hybrid devices that are showing up? If I add a
touchscreen to a laptop and make the keyboard removable is it a tablet? If I
add a keyboard to a tablet is it a laptop. The whole tablet is an
appliance/laptop is a computer line or reasoning is flawed from the outset and
the lines will only become more and more blurred with time.

------
ck2
Apparently as consumers we don't own anything anymore, we are just renting it
from our corporate overlords.

~~~
pooriaazimi
You don't have to buy these machines. If you choose to buy it, you've bought a
Windows 8 machine and have paid for it. It's not like MS promised you a dual-
bootable machine and sold you a single-bootable machine. You know what you're
getting, and you can choose whether or not it fits your needs.

~~~
Havoc
> you can choose

Microsoft isn't known for playing nice & allowing competitors to compete
fairly. So yes there will be choice, but relying on that as a justification is
pretty risky imo. Esp considering MS's standard MO and history.

~~~
pooriaazimi
I hate MS just as the next guy. But Open Thinking (tm) people should no seek
freedom (as in speech) through restricting other's (namely, MS) freedom. They
have the right to do what they feel like, and we have the choice whether or
not to buy them.

 _(I'm not being snarky)_

~~~
Zak
Criticism is not the same as attempting to restrict Microsoft's freedom.
Telling others "these guys placed an arbitrary limitation on their product to
hinder competition; you should not do business with them" is _the_ free-market
way to influence a company's behavior.

~~~
pooriaazimi
I completely agree, and that's what I personally do. I just disagree with some
people's opinion that 'Microsoft has no right to do such and such, it's my
device. I bought it and so I can do whatever the hell I want to do with it'.

That's not exactly what the grand-grandparent was saying, and I'm not against
what he says; I just wanted to add my comment _(which I thought would be
downvote to oblivion, but funnily, has now a double-digit vote count!!)_

------
bni
From the article: "Apple has long prevented dual booting to Linux"

This is not true, I have Ubuntu on my MacBook Pro.

~~~
brudgers
The article is about ARM devices, not x86.

~~~
rbanffy
Apple _makes_ their own devices. Microsoft is forcing OEMs who would allow
dual booting to restrict user choice because they'd rather not compete.

~~~
recoiledsnake
So, if Microsoft bought up Nokia or HTC and made their own Windows RT tablets,
people will be better off with no hardware choice like with iOS and there
would be no complaining here?

If a company wants to enhance competition between its hardware partners and a
hardware choice to the public, they should be forced to not license it on
their own terms?

~~~
rbanffy
So, now, Microsoft wants to "enhance" competition by making Windows 8 only
devices that cannot be upgraded to a non-Microsoft OS.

That's an interesting interpretation of "enhancing".

~~~
recoiledsnake
Lets say a new company called "Cranapple" comes along and releases a new
locked down tablet CranPad into the market with their own custom locked down
proprietary OS.

Does this act enhance the competition in the tablet market? Serious question.

------
brudgers
[edit] The article is from January[/edit]

Topic discussed previously on Hacker News:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3458679>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3567448>

Upshot: If you don't care that your hardware is certified, you don't have to
implement secure boot in the way Microsoft requires for certification. You
will probably have a few technical challenges, however.

~~~
air
"Upshot: If you don't care that your hardware is certified, you don't have to
implement secure boot in the way Microsoft requires for certification."

No, upshot is that for ARM you can't get Windows at all (certified or not) if
you allow other operating systems to boot.

~~~
brudgers
Windows certification is not necessarily the same as Windows licensing, and
given the history, that is likely to remain the case.

The article conflates the two: _"a document that regulates licensing
(certification) (pg. 116): "_

But Microsoft is clear: _"The new Windows Hardware Certification Program
(formerly known as the Windows Logo program) makes it easier to certify your
hardware for Windows 8. Use the requirements to build and certify your
Windows-compatible devices, systems, and filter drivers across all Windows
platforms."_

[http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
us/library/windows/hardware/hh7...](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
us/library/windows/hardware/hh748200.aspx)

~~~
air
Considering that WOA will not be sold separately and how MS touts tight
integration with hardware, I'd be willing to make a bet that consumers won't
be able to buy an ARM device with WOA that can boot to Linux (without
exploits).

[http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012/02/09/building-
windo...](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012/02/09/building-windows-for-
the-arm-processor-architecture.aspx)

"Partners will provide WOA PCs as integrated, end-to-end products that include
hardware, firmware, and Windows on ARM software. Windows on ARM software will
not be sold or distributed independent of a new WOA PC, just as you would
expect from a consumer electronics device that relies on unique and integrated
pairings of hardware and software"

------
Hoff
Please take a moment to reflect on the current situation before launching the
"corporate overlord" and related snark.

Many existing customers effectively do not own what they already have; their
systems have been infested with malware and crapplications.

Locked-down bootstraps are the least-bad of a very bad lot of approaches
available for dealing with the changes in the user base, and with the
increasingly less-experienced and less-DIY users for modern systems.

Security attacks are only getting more subtle, complex and sophisticated. The
Microsoft Terminal Server-derived Microsoft code-signing digital certificates
is a recent example of the complexity of the environment.

How do you deal with these changes in attacks and with the changes in the user
base otherwise, given the numbers of systems out there, and the changes in the
knowledge and experience of the user base?

Do any of us like these locked-down bootstraps? Emphatically, no. So figure
out another way to ensure this security, get yourself patent or three (and
yes, software patents are issued for far too many years) and get yourself rich
by solving this problem.

~~~
keeperofdakeys
I personally don't see many bootloader attacks these days. Consider that
SecureBoot only protects from attacks like this, after bootstraping it is upto
the OS to ensure security. So purely from this, I don't think the tradeoffs
are worth it. Once you have infastructure like this, it isn't hard for it to
be misused (even with good intentions).

------
CUR10US
Anything that cannot boot from USB, SD card, or some externally connected
media, should be approached with caution.

If you can boot from external media, then generally you can dual boot. Someone
may have to show you how to prepare media for booting, but it's quite easy
once you have been shown. Today's PC's all seem to have good support for
booting from external media. Are we going to see this removed in ARM devices?

You do not have to shop for devices that have an "open" bootloader. You have
to shop for devices that can boot from external media. (For today's PC's,
that's quite easy.) If you have a device that can boot from external media, we
can show how to do the rest.

------
gouranga
Like iOS. Why the shock headline?

~~~
ars
Because the iOS policy is unethical (the machine belongs to the user, not
apple), and now Microsoft is (attempting) to do it too.

The only way to stop unethical behavior is to punish them. The Library of
Congress already ruled that this behavior is unethical, now manufacturers need
to be pressured.

~~~
gouranga
For reference as the parent of your comment, I agree 100%

I do however see disparity with general opinion and what is right, which is
slightly worrying, hence the original point.

------
esolyt
Great. If ARM starts dominating laptops as well, nobody will be able to boot
Ubuntu or any other Linux distribution on them.

------
exDM69
I assume Microsoft will want to have secure booting devices that ship with
Windows, because Hollywood and other content producers require a secure OS so
their DRM is safer. If they would allow non-secure boot, it might be difficult
or impossible to get video and music content licensed from the major producers
on the platform.

~~~
fpgeek
Because insecure-booting OSes like Windows 7 (and earlier) and Mac OS X have
so much trouble getting licensed video and music content...

~~~
exDM69
The situation is a bit different on mobile platforms. Mostly because the field
is new and changing, so content producers see an opportunity to require secure
boot.

DRM/content licensing was cited by Asus as a reason to ship their Android
products with locked bootloaders. I assume the same applies to Microsoft.

------
tzs
My speculation is that they are doing this so that they can offer subsidies on
the hardware.

~~~
fpgeek
If that's the problem, why can't end users "buy off" the bootloader lock if
they want to?

~~~
miahi
MS doesn't need the money, they needs the users.

------
danmaz74
The article is much more complex than what it would look like from the title,
but it is a good idea to keep the pressure on on Microsoft so that they might
"soften their position", as is stated in the article.

~~~
keeperofdakeys
Originally Windows 8 x86 certification didn't mandate that a disable option
must exist. They changed this because of pressure. They won't soften their
position just like that, they have a policy and agenda and they will follow
it. Just the fact that they will have a SecureBoot stronghold means they can
easily tighten their position. The pain doesn't come from the fences being
built, it's from taking them away.

Also, all of this pretty much stops new linux penetration, which is a horrible
thing.

~~~
tjoff
The windows 8 x86 certification shouldn't need to mandate that a disable
option must exist. It was added because people wouldn't trust manufacturers to
support anything but Windows.

------
novalis
The really troubling part of this is UEFI being used as a strong arm scam that
depends on MS good will... how did things get to this point. On another point,
they can "ban" whatever they want. They also didn't support Windows Phone 7 or
allow Android and Ubuntu on my old trusty HTC HD2 and look at it go. Plus, it
is just like saying to a child that she cannot have the piece of cake in front
of her, if it looks tasty it's going to be munched. Meaning, if the hardware
will be good someone somewhere is going to shoe horn it independent of what MS
wants.

------
showwayer
It gives me great excuse not to use Microsoft Windows then!

------
tomrod
I'm not familiar with the specifics of ARM devices. Why couldn't one come
later and install Linux+variant of Grub to detect the MBR after the Windows
install?

~~~
esolyt
Simply because UEFI will refuse to boot to anything other than Windows

------
zokier
Does anyone have statistics about how many Android devices require signed
systems?

------
c0un7d0wn
Just when we hear chromeos and android about to become one

~~~
madoublet
I did not hear that. Link?

~~~
c0un7d0wn
[http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-
systems/goo...](http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-
systems/google-android-and-chrome-os-will-slowly-converge-1082683)

~~~
madoublet
Thanks!

------
wavephorm
It only increases the subsection of hardware I won't buy. Thanks for making my
choice easy.

~~~
tjoff
What subsection of hardware do you buy?

