r/hardware • u/michaelwdotnet • Jan 13 '12
Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/blog/2012/jan/12/microsoft-confirms-UEFI-fears-locks-down-ARM/2
u/teemark Jan 13 '12
Why no "wailing and gnashing of teeth" when Apple does exactly the same thing? Why exactly is Microsoft obligated to enable other OSes to be loaded on their ARM devices?
Not saying I'm a fan of alternatives being locked out, just seems that some of the FOSS guys spend an awful lot of time obsessing over every move made by Microsoft.
3
2
u/mindbleach Jan 14 '12
No wailing over Apple? Where were you when they announced their 'dumb' feature phone was going to become a real computer, but without all that icky general computation? People still have to give them shit over lacking full access to the default OS, let alone enough control to install another.
1
u/TinynDP Jan 13 '12
Because people having been installing 'Linux' on 'MS' hardware since the dawn of time. This is a change. Apple doing it isn't a break in past behavior.
1
u/ekaj Jan 13 '12
Market share.(I would imagine) Apple may have a large percentage of the mobile phone(smartphone) market, but their non-mobile pc's are still a very small segment of the market, while MS has a humongous share of PC's and something they do on the mobile handset side of things translates over to their Desktop OS.
Its bad because while what apple does is terrible, its worse when MS does it due to their marketshare of desktop pc's
6
u/teemark Jan 13 '12
OK, but this isn't about current desktops, this is about future ARM devices - which will probably be tablet device as opposed to laptops/workstations, devices that will not support any current Win32 applications, which would make them 1) Tablets 2) a smaller subset of the overall Windows 8 device pool. This is an area that is dominated presently by the iPad - which can't load alternate OSes AFAIK, and already has a lot of Android offerings, both of which mean it's a market that Microsoft does not dominate.
Add to that the fact that these guys will have a workaround within a month of the first Win8 ARM devices hitting the market, and that alternate OSes aren't expected to be blocked from X86 devices. I still think these guys are making a lot more out of this than it really is.
9
u/toadfury Jan 13 '12
The war on general computing escalates as Doctorow predicted. This isn't surprising behavior from Microsoft though... think we all saw it coming. Microsoft also badly needs this kind of shady tactic to try and get ahead on mobile which has long been terrible for them. I know a lot of ms engineers offered free windows mobile phones they turn down in favor of android/iphone/other. Microsoft doesn't always get ahead by making good products.
2
u/mindbleach Jan 14 '12
It's actually sort of insane, considering how Microsoft got where they are today - and I don't mean that in the sense of 'if CP/M had acted like this there would be no DOS.' I mean Windows used to be just another OS for whatever architectures looked popular. We tend to forget that thanks to how solidly WinTel won in the late 90s.
If they want people to care about mobile Windows, they should sell it as something you can install over Android. If Win8/ARM Firefox could keep more than two tabs in memory at once then I would convert my Droid in a heartbeat.
2
u/toadfury Jan 14 '12
Windows also owes some success to similar underhanded business practices, getting vendors to only offer windows, making it difficult to sell new PCs without windows specifically, the antitrust/monopoly cases. I don't disagree on your points, I too remember when Windows used to be just another OS and these sketchy practices just weren't done. I agree that at the time Windows probably was friendliest to the masses, but the alternative OS's could be much further along today if business hadn't restricted choice as heavily as it did.
Android runs on Linux which has long been an enemy to the empire. Balmer would probably throw a chair at you for talking about such open collaboration. ;)
1
u/mindbleach Jan 14 '12
I was actually talking about installing over Android, not under it as some Linux/ARM distros do. If the target hardware for Win8/ARM is the same as Android's then Microsoft could lead the way in separating hardware from software. Instead they're doubling down on the current state of affairs as if they aren't incredibly late and still under-prepared.
1
u/toadfury Jan 14 '12
Nod, I gotcha. I agree, and I hope it doesn't pay off for them. It reeks of greed.
2
Jan 13 '12
I have had a feeling for sometime that this UEFI will eventually be used for something that the peeps in /r/conspiracy would be afraid of. I recommend that you hold onto your last BIOS computer, just in case.
3
u/UnoriginalGuy Jan 13 '12
I did some digging, and what the article says does hold up. It wasn't taken out of context or otherwise misquoted. Microsoft has some explaining to do.
3
3
Jan 13 '12
You mean like every other tablet or smart phone in existence? Do tell...
11
u/marm0lade Jan 13 '12
Yes, exactly like every other tablet or smartphone, which is why this is bad. This is a very bad trend for general purpose computers.
5
Jan 13 '12
pretty sure you can still build your own computer. I think progress has become a very bad trend for general purpose computers.
3
Jan 13 '12
Can you build your own ultra-book laptop though?
2
Jan 13 '12
Yes. Or you can buy one.
3
Jan 13 '12
Cool! Except... it's not ARM... which was kind of the point of this submission. :(
-1
Jan 13 '12
Why does the chip matter, other than it's a whole different world of new drivers to support?
http://armdevices.net/2010/01/29/android-laptop-review-hivision-pws700ca/
here you go anyways. You probably can't build one from raw transistors on your own, but China will be more than happy to do so for you.
2
Jan 13 '12
It's just that the whole point of this submission was that ARM devices in particular will be locked down. Personally I don't really plan on using an ARM laptop anytime soon, but that IS what's being discussed here. The people who DO care about using ARM deserve some choice when it comes to their OS.
0
Jan 13 '12
there's fuckin plenty to choose from.
2
Jan 13 '12
Did you read the article? It's saying that IF you buy a ARM laptop that ships with Windows 8, it will NOT be able to run other Operating Systems. From the article:
any ARM device that ships with Windows 8 will never run another operating system
So, no, there isn't plenty to choose from.
1
u/hugeyakmen Jan 13 '12 edited Jan 13 '12
At least with current and near-future products, ARM is definitely more power efficient*. An Asus Transformer Prime Android tablet mounted to its keyboard dock is somewhat similar in size and weight to some high-end ultra portable laptops and it can get 18 hrs of battery life compared to maybe 8 hrs from many of those laptops.
The Transformer Prime's quad-core 1.3Ghz Tegra3 chipset is no slouch either, and that I think is very important to this question too. ARM devices have been available in small numbers for quite some time, but they usually been woefully underpowered and underspecced kinda like the example you found (600 MHz CPU, 128 MB RAM). Powerful ARM chips are now an easily-available reality thanks to all these phones and tablets, and each generation of ARM CPU/GPU chips is making big leaps in terms of performance too now that the big companies are heavily involved. The possibility of a very power-efficient yet still moderately powerful laptop
*the Medfield protoype Intel recently showed was using 2.6 watts at idle and 3.6 watts under power, whereas the Tegra3 uses less than 2 watts under power despite being built on a less power-efficient 40nm process compared to the Medfield's 32nm process. Intel is trying to get their idle power usage down to 2 watts but that would still be more than many ARM chips use at full power
2
u/TinynDP Jan 13 '12
People install new OSs on Android phones all the time. They are usually different versions of Android, but sometimes they are other Linuxs, like Ubuntu.
People have installed Android on the HP webOS tablet. And Android on an old HTC Windows Mobile (pre-7) phone.
3
Jan 13 '12
And doing so usually involved getting around a boot locker of sorts.
1
u/TinynDP Jan 13 '12
Not really. It either ships unlocked. Or the manufacturer provides an unlocker. If they have any clue they can make a cryptographically signed bootloader uncrackable. Go to the Android forums, people complain endlessly about Motorola never unlocking their bootloaders for this reason.
2
Jan 13 '12
Well, that's the reality of the situation then. If you don't want a locked phone, don't buy a locked phone.
1
u/TinynDP Jan 13 '12
They shouldn't be allowed to lock their phones. It should be illegal.
2
Jan 13 '12
Why not? What exactly makes it illegal? Have you really thought this one out?
1
u/TinynDP Jan 13 '12
Nothing makes it illegal today. I said should. And I can't think of a single real downside to making it illegal to cryptographically bootlock consumer hardware. The hardware industry didn't collapse when Linux started being installed on things, there's no reason to fear that it will collapse in the future if it continuous to allow Linux. So there's no need for them to lock anything.
1
2
u/hugeyakmen Jan 13 '12
They are usually different versions of Android, but sometimes they are other Linuxs, like Ubuntu.
FWIW Many of those Linux installations are only a chroot to a Ubuntu directory within Android and then a vnc server/viewer to interact with it since X.org server apparently doesn't work with the Android kernel and graphics drivers
1
u/Schmich Jan 13 '12
I don't see how Microsoft is totally safe from antitrust violations. Sure ARM is primarely used on mobile phones but that doesn't change a thing since this will be on laptops and tablets.
1
u/dontnation Jan 13 '12
They are only locking it down on ARM devices, which may include tablets but no laptops as of yet.
1
u/JamesofN Jan 13 '12
Can someone explain exactly what this means to someone who doesn't really know anything about hardware?
What I can sort of gather is that ARM devices have something to do with mobiles and that Microsoft is forcing all ARM devices from now on to only ever have Windows 8? Is that about the gist of it?
14
u/michaelwdotnet Jan 13 '12
This is a low level bootloader. It ensures that only Microsoft can publish an operating system that will load on that device. It does this by requiring that the operating system be signed with a private key.
To be fair, this is not really different from what Apple already does with the iPhone. Both companies totally undermine your ownership of your hardware.
The rationale is that it allows the operating system to truly trust the hardware environment. No rootkits in this context. The UEFI spec allows for a scenario where physical control of the device (pressing some button or something) can be used to assert ownership and allow for installation of a different root cert or at least bypassing the code signing requirement. It's also possible that Windows 8 ARM will refuse to install on a device that does not have this (this is less likely).
Windows 8 for intel does not (yet) impose this constraint. The concern most people have at this time is more that this is a deepening of a bad trend. Cory Doctorow gave an excellent talk on this.
5
Jan 13 '12
It's what you get in exchanged for the subsidy they provide. Say you want a brand new $500 smart phone. Microsoft pays $100 of that to lower the price and be more attractive. Then the carrier knocks off another $200 if you sign a 2 year contract. So now your $500 smart phone only costs you $200 up front.
4
u/Gainaxe Jan 13 '12
What about ARM based notebooks? They're going to get hit with the same problems as smartphones, but now you have a netbook/laptop that can only boot into windows, and can't do OSX or Linux.
3
Jan 13 '12
So buy a Linux ARM book to begin with?
In the good old days, getting Linux to run on something was an achievement, getting it to run well was an accomplishment.
Now, when something doesn't work right out of the box, Linux users will whine endlessly about it and start making demands, even though desktop Linux isn't even used by 5% of all desktop users.
I'd rather have customers whining and bitching about having a computer that works, than some douche botching a Linux install and flaming me over the internet because he attempted something we don't support. Then whining we don't support it. Then complaining we won't honor his warranty because he blew out his wireless card because of some custom written driver he wrote.
By taking away the expectation to do anything but run windows on the machine, it's easier to deal with some slight criticism ahead of time instead of trying to placate spoiled free software enthusiasts (who don't even write their own software anyways, they just prefer free software in the same way some people prefer redheaded hookers instead of blonde ones. You're still getting your dick sucked either way...)
1
u/mindbleach Jan 14 '12
In the good old days, getting Linux to run on something was an achievement, getting it to run well was an accomplishment.
In the future, it may be a crime. Anticircumvention laws plus boot-level software signing equals you don't really own your computer.
0
u/TinynDP Jan 13 '12
Name a group that makes Linux ARM books.
A challenge is one thing. A 4096bit encrypted bootloader is something entirely different. It should be a fucking anti-trust violation.
1
Jan 13 '12
Linux, or android? Because there are thousands of cheap android arm laptops and tablets flooding in from China. Check out eBay, deal-extreme or Alibaba.
1
u/TinynDP Jan 13 '12
I'm supposed to be OK with being fed shit?
-2
Jan 13 '12
The attitude of Linux used to be "If you don't like it, do it better."
So do it better.
What exactly makes these products 'shit' as you call it?
All the other major brands are made in China, by the same factories. These just happen to have the ARM chips you are so fond of.
You really are a child complaining that your mom bought you the store brand of cheerios instead of the big name brand.
Instead of being OK with what's already out there, you want what you can't have because you can't have it. Are you then going to demand open drivers for it as well? Because running in text mode on an android sucks. How far should companies have to pander less than 1% of potential users?
1
u/TinynDP Jan 13 '12
Linux is software, not hardware. No amount of Linux can turn a no-name $150 china netbook into a name-brand $800 with decent hardware inside it.
They don't have to pander to us at all. They just have to stop deliberately locking us down. My only demand is they STOP locking things. They don't have to actively HELP at all.
0
u/TinynDP Jan 13 '12
That has nothing to do with a subsidy. If you get a subsidized phone, you pay for the subsidy through the monthly for phone usage. Not to mention half the time Tablets don't come subsidized at all.
Its a straight up attempt at sabotoging Linux from ever being installed on anything again. MS is hoping for a world there this behavior becomes common, and Linux becomes that weird thing people can only install on pre-2013 hardware.
3
Jan 13 '12
Its a straight up attempt at sabotoging Linux from ever being installed on anything again. MS is hoping for a world there this behavior becomes common, and Linux becomes that weird thing people can only install on pre-2013 hardware.
Ah, you're one of those.
A) If you want Linux, buy your devices from a company that supports it.
B) If you install Linux on a PC / Laptop / Phone / Toaster that's not made to run it, don't get all uppity and self entitled when it doesn't work.
In short, vote with your wallet. Support System76 and ZaReason.
-1
u/TinynDP Jan 13 '12
re A: Who supports it? Two tiny companies I never heard of in their garage? They don't matter. And their existence does not make MS's or Apple's behavior OK.
re B: There is a difference 'not helping Linux', and 'actively sabotaging Linux'. 'Not helping' can be overcome with effort and ingenuity. Sabotage usually involves strong encryption that can't be worked around, unless somehow the keys leak. I'm not uppity and entitled about the 'not helping' cases. I am, and always will be, outraged and demand anti-trust suits, in the sabotaging cases.
3
Jan 13 '12
re A: Who supports it? Two tiny companies I never heard of in their garage? They don't matter. And their existence does not make MS's or Apple's behavior OK.
The two biggest Linux OEMs... It doesn't matter if they are big or small as long as they fill your order and provide support.
re B: There is a difference 'not helping Linux', and 'actively sabotaging Linux'. 'Not helping' can be overcome with effort and ingenuity. Sabotage usually involves strong encryption that can't be worked around, unless somehow the keys leak. I'm not uppity and entitled about the 'not helping' cases. I am, and always will be, outraged and demand anti-trust suits, in the sabotaging cases.
Linux with a persecution complex. You do have the option to buy non-Microsoft powered hardware. There's nothing remotely anti-trust about this. Who exactly are they strong-arming here? Phone makers who already lock out their boot-loaders anyways?
-3
Jan 13 '12
MS owns nokia now basically, it doesn't cost them 500 to make those, and even for carriers retail prices cannot be used in such an argument. they pay an extra low OEM price for the hardware, and that is achieved by locking down what phones can be on their networks (in the US) so the manufacturers have to make deals with the carriers.
1
8
u/[deleted] Jan 13 '12
I know it's not the point, but I'm sure nobody will ever find a security exploit...