Mean old M$

nixnine · **Posted:** Wed Sep 21, 2011 10:33 pm **(#1)**

Microsoft's monopoly

Microsoft doesn't want me to use linux. Surely this will be stopped.

lylejk · **Joined:** Sep 24, 2010 **Posts:** 12516

I doubt I will ever try to use Win8 Nixnine. Win7 is quite stable and I virtualize from there. Win8 looks like it's going to adopt an apstore approach so M$ can make more bucks like Apple's doing (another OS that I will not ever use nor any of it's offspring (i.e., IPod, IPad, etc.)).

Rod · **Joined:** May 16, 2010 **Posts:** 14709 **Location:** USA

Hey if it happens just turn off windows.

paynekj · **Posted:** Thu Sep 22, 2011 12:46 am **(#4)**

Rod wrote:

Hey if it happens just turn off windows.

According to this, slightly more technical article, that's not going to be an option as it's the bios that's changing:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/21 ... ion_fears/

mahvin · **Joined:** Oct 06, 2010 **Posts:** 4045

Lose-Lose.

Oregonian · **Posted:** Thu Sep 22, 2011 2:12 am **(#6)**

It's not a done deal yet and I think M$ will be up for lawsuits. M$ will lose even more customers if they go this route. Having a monopoly on what software will be allowed on a computer will not cause people to go to the M$ side. It will just make them angry and have them looking around at other options such as Macs and privately built computers with Linux installed on them. :pengy

paynekj · **Posted:** Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:06 am **(#7)**

Oregonian wrote:

It's not a done deal yet and I think M$ will be up for lawsuits. M$ will lose even more customers if they go this route. Having a monopoly on what software will be allowed on a computer will not cause people to go to the M$ side. It will just make them angry and have them looking around at other options such as Macs and privately built computers with Linux installed on them. :pengy

I disagree. Already Apple are controlling what applications you can put onto their products (iPhones & iPads) and people are positively eager to have them. I suspect it's a minority that would become angry and there may not be enough of them to make enough financial muscle to make a difference. I think that the anticompetitive lobby will have more say in the matter.

ofnuts · **Joined:** Oct 25, 2010 **Posts:** 4739

Oregonian wrote:

It's not a done deal yet and I think M$ will be up for lawsuits. M$ will lose even more customers if they go this route. Having a monopoly on what software will be allowed on a computer will not cause people to go to the M$ side. It will just make them angry and have them looking around at other options such as Macs and privately built computers with Linux installed on them. :pengy

The underlying goal is to put have efficient DRM on your PC, by only allowing approved software. They tried that a while ago already. Vista was supposed to include Palladium. Fortunately for M$ they didn't do it at the time. Vista was bad already, Vista+Palladium would have been the death of Windows

But the public at large isn't that stupid. Everybody uses pirated media to some extent. Why do people use Windows and not Linux? Because they have the (misplaced IMHO) feeling that with Windows things "just work". With DRM this feeling will disappear. And Windows "killer apps" (the MS-office suite) are slowly made irrelevant. Joe Average can live without Windows. But he doesn't know yet. The fun part is that he may find this out thanks to M$ itself

mahvin · **Joined:** Oct 06, 2010 **Posts:** 4045

The way I see it, there will always be hackers, rebels, and outlaws. M$ doesn't scare me too easily, seeing how their market share is just about dried up. It's doubtful they can really regain their diminished market from all those fruitless projects they gambled and lost on.

tstandiford · **Posted:** Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:22 am **(#10)**

nixnine wrote:

Microsoft's monopoly

Microsoft doesn't want me to use linux. Surely this will be stopped.

If this does happen, I would never purchase a windows-based machine again.
ever. It is funny to think that Micro$oft would try to stop Linux people from installing Linux on their machine.

Yeah, good luck with that.

gerard82 · **Posted:** Thu Sep 22, 2011 7:54 am **(#11)**

I think we here in Europe have nothing to fear.
I am sure the EU will prevent M$ selling this here.
Gerard.

tstandiford · **Posted:** Thu Sep 22, 2011 9:28 am **(#12)**

http://www.system76.com/ <---problem solved.

GnuTux · **Posted:** Thu Sep 22, 2011 1:19 pm **(#13)**

With the threat of higher prices for OEM versions of Windows, we might see some PC manufacturers be pressured by Micro$oft into using this kind of BIOS. That's about the only real leverage they have but we are talking big money for major PC manufacturers. One would think there could be serious antitrust concerns with this kind of non-competitive behavior.

I'm sure there won't be a shortage of hardware alternatives for the open source and alternative OS folks. BIOS chips can easily be re-flashed or replaced. :hehe

Willy · **Posted:** Thu Sep 22, 2011 2:55 pm **(#14)**

sorry didn't read through all the posts but,

Mac stops you from putting windows on correct? Unless you run Bootcamp, so whats stopping someone from making a bootcamp type program to change this?

cecilia · **Posted:** Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:02 pm **(#15)**

I'm in Ubuntu 90% of the time....probably more. I go days without even turning on windows. and I don't use windows for the internet.
things work basically ok in linux and I see no reason to use a bloated OS

paynekj · **Posted:** Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:10 pm **(#16)**

Willy wrote:

sorry didn't read through all the posts but,

Mac stops you from putting windows on correct? Unless you run Bootcamp, so whats stopping someone from making a bootcamp type program to change this?

Because the new BIOS will only boot code that has been signed with a secret key that it already knows about, so as GnuTux says, replacing the BIOS is the only way round it, and I expect that route will be made more difficult as well.

tstandiford · **Posted:** Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:29 pm **(#17)**

I spoke with a group of MCSEs about this topic today. Their only response was "That ain't gonna fly. Microsoft is going to get their pants sued off."

Demen · **Joined:** Aug 31, 2010 **Posts:** 93

It's a bit premature. I love a good "screw Microsoft" rant as much as the next guy, but so far it seems to be an optional feature, not an unchangeable requirement. But let's keep a wary eye open, shall we?

Rod · **Joined:** May 16, 2010 **Posts:** 14709 **Location:** USA

Why would that be an optional feature?
MS - hey want to run JUST windows on your computer 4-ever?
LINUX - bite me

We all know the answer to that question, so why bother asking it?

Demen · **Joined:** Aug 31, 2010 **Posts:** 93

I'm not saying MS isn't full of crap, but they aren't outright forcing hardware makers to have an irreversible "secure boot" option. Though, I'm not ruling out underhanded use of "pressure" at this point. I'd rather wait and see how it plays out before passing judgment. I don't think an OEM would keep an option that lost them even twenty percent of sales and caused constant complaints from pissed-off tech-savy users. Sometimes people take the worse scenario and run with it.

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/09/micr ... x-worries/

It would behoove everyone to take a moment to consider alternative outcomes before getting indignant. A bit of skepticism goes a long way.

EDIT: Or did I misunderstand you? I thought you were saying you thought it'd be forced and permanent. Did you mean something else?