Linus shoots from the hip, and calls a spade a spade...
SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
Exactly. Microsoft can claim all they want we "lease" the OS from them, but if that's the case, then are we also "leasing" the hardware from the OEM also? We "buy" copies of software and buy hardware just the same, so why is it Microsoft gets to play pick and choose and nobody short of the US government has attempted to tell them this isn't how it works?
Well, here's something to consider. So far, I've only heard about being able to turn Secure Boot on or off. There's no way to set it to on for this OS, and off for another. Windows 8 will work without Secure Boot, but what about Windows 9? Most of the people I've known who have gotten into Linux (including myself) started on a machine where they dual booted it with Windows. I still know many people who don't personally care for Windows, but still have to keep it around because of work, hardware that isn't supported on Linux, or for other reasons. If a future version of Windows refuses to work with secure boot deactivated, that's a pretty big hurdle for a new user who isn't willing to switch entirely away from Windows. And it seems like the technical hurdles for supporting Secure Boot on Linux are much larger for the new user unless we accept Microsoft as the sole key authority, since their key is the only one shipping in firmware.
I can't see how Secure Boot doesn't either result in less Linux adoption, or giving a lot more control over Linux to Microsoft... that's why I care.
This has been my main concern about secure boot all along. Anyone who does not at least suspect that this may be the groundwork for some kind of a cynical ploy to lock out *nix systems, is being a little naive.
Originally Posted by brianL
ARM devices are proliferating, ARM processors getting more powerful. And suddenly Microsoft get interested in ARM, and want that lock-in. That should get everybody's alarm bells ringing.
[sarcasm]No, I'm sure you're just putting two and two together and making five... conspiracy theorist...[/sarcasm]
Last edited by cynwulf; 02-28-2013 at 11:14 AM.
Reason: It's evening, I'm tired, so I'm not sure what the two posts following mine are about, but I've added some clarification...
I can only repeat what I said before on various occasions: On ARM (almost) anyone is locking the devices, yet nobody is blaming Apple or the manufacturers using Android for that, but once Microsoft with its negligible marketshare in the ARM world does the exact same thing the whole world is crying out loud how they are occupying our hardware.
Guess what? The same thing that works on x86 hardware (look out what you are buying and that you can use it in the way you intend to) is also working on ARM devices: Want to use Linux on your ARM device? Then simply don't buy a Windows machine. Why would you do that anyway if you don't plan to use Windows?
I wish Linus would yank Linux away from Red Hat and forbid them to release, work on, or contribute anything to Linux anymore. I won't bring up why, again, but it involves a certain "developer" who shall be known as "He Who Shall Not Be Named".
I believe a better term for him would be "The Microshaft Enabler".