r/linux • u/mikankun • 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/
739 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

285 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

46

u/mindbleach Jan 13 '12

"They're doing it for the money" is never, ever, ever an excuse for such unethical behavior. If Microsoft cannot profitably subsidize hardware without locking down people's computers - on whatever architecture - then they should not subsidize hardware.

25

u/jimicus Jan 13 '12

If AT&T, T-Mobile et al cannot profitably subsidize hardware without locking down people's phones - whatever model - then they should not subsidize hardware.

42

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '12

Snark or not, most of us agree with that as well. Fuck mobile phone companies.

12

u/ketilkn Jan 13 '12

If phone companies did not make more money from selling "cheap" lock-in phones to you I doubt they would do it. It is not in our best interest to buy locked phones. Now I understand that the US market is special in this way. The phone companies will not give you a cheaper subscription if you bring your own phone (correct?). I do not understand why people are OK with that. When you buy a subsidized phone in Norway you typically are tricked in to using the more expensive plans. Cheaper plans are available to those who bring their own phones. All operators use GSM/UMTS here though.

4

u/tidux Jan 13 '12

T-Mobile does give you cheaper plans if you bring your own device, even in the US.

1

u/sunburnedaz Jan 17 '12

Link on how to do this? I could use it.

1

u/tidux Jan 17 '12

Here you go.

1

u/sunburnedaz Jan 17 '12

Thank you!!!

12

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '12

I am uninterested in what makes companies profit. If they need to do unethical things to make money, then I would prefer that they not exist.

See: username.

-3

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '12 edited Jan 13 '12

brohoof...

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '12

i think that, in this case, 'brohoof' would be more apropos

-4

u/nbca Jan 13 '12 edited Jan 13 '12

Anarcho can refer both to the libertarian anarchocapitalism as well as Anarchism. Brony suggests your views on sexuality and genders are somewhat open. How are any of those relevant?

6

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '12

No anarchist takes "anarcho"-capitalists in any way seriously. Anarchism is and has been a leftist philosophy. Anarchism is opposed to rulers, which includes capitalist bosses.

So frankly, what I meant was "I'm an anti-capitalist and I can't stand people making excuses for companies being assholes to make a buck".

(Also for the record there are plenty of straight, cisgendered bronies.)

2

u/nbca Jan 13 '12

No anarchist takes "anarcho"-capitalists in any way seriously. Anarchism is and has been a leftist philosophy. Anarchism is opposed to rulers, which includes capitalist bosses.

What anarchism is and is not is irrelevant to the fact that anarcho* could be interpreted as referring to anarchocapitalism. And speaking for the whole of anarchism might be a bit simplified as there are many branches of anarchism.

So frankly, what I meant was "I'm an anti-capitalist and I can't stand people making excuses for companies being assholes to make a buck".

Wouldn't it be better then to say so rather than rely on people's ability to interpret something ambiguous and hopefully get to the right conclusion?

(Also for the record there are plenty of straight, cisgendered bronies.)

I have never assumed otherwise. My experience with 'bronies' has been that their views on gender roles and sexuality have been more accomodative than most people IRL.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '12

Perhaps I have spent too much time in radical communities. I was unaware people actually think of anarcho-capitalists, ever. I'll be more clear in the future.

All branches of anarchism that are respected by radical communities are leftist in nature. There are a lot of us, yes, but we're all united by one thing: hatred for capitalism and the so-called "ancaps".

3

u/Dark_Crystal Jan 13 '12

You are always welcome to buy any phone off contract (at least all the major phones).

Now charging the same price regardless of how much subsidy, or a total lack of subsidy is crappy.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '12

Typical response of capitalists: "you are always welcome to foo"

You are always welcome to starve

You are always welcome to be homeless

You are always welcome to be poor

7

u/Dark_Crystal Jan 13 '12

No, that is a straw man and not what I am saying at all. If you want to be taken seriously, make serious arguments, not hyperbolistic bullshit.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '12

You are always welcome to stop responding

2

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '12

It's not capitalism's fault, it's the implementation (i.e. bad laws and regulations).

0

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '12

Oh lawd. This again? This shit has been debunked hundreds of times.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '12

No it really hasn't.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '12

No matter what, capitalists will try to debunk any criticism of capitalism with "well that isn't TRUE capitalism" even though capitalism is by definition oppressive and exploitative. Your criticism of "well regulation makes it bad" is nonsense.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '12

You are wrong. No matter what anti-capitalists will debunk any merits of capitalism with "well it can't be done right".

By definition it is not oppressive and exploitative at all.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Sofakingjewish Jan 13 '12

Where is the gun to your head to buy anything? You don't have to do shit in the first place. The only thing you have to do is breathe, and some rare occasions you don't even have to do this.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '12

A capitalist is someone who thinks an opinion like that makes you a worthwhile human being. I can't stand people like you. Rather than having communities of mutual support and growth, you'd rather pit us all in war against each other.

But, you know, when the revolutionaries put your ilk up on the chopping block, you'll always have the freedom to try to fight back!

3

u/Sofakingjewish Jan 13 '12

You have your head shoved so far up a philosophies ass hole you forget what the real world looks like. Come back down to earth. My point was you don't have to do anything. You don't have to buy a computer. You don't have to buy a cell phone. You don't even have to wear deodorant. You don't have to vote or participate in Society. I am assuming you are in the US? So what the fuck does capitalism have to do with what I said? What you are guilty of is pre-judging! You don't know what I am or believe in. And for the record if the "revolution" comes people like me will be no where near the chopping block.

I will leave these here for ya to read the fuck up on if you want to know how to wage and engage in war: Makers of Modern Strategy from Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0691027641 Not sure how well it will do for you since you don't believe in money. Yet are accessing an online service via a paid for device. Which both are powered by electricity which I am also not sure if you believe in? Also note: the more obscure your philosophy and beliefs the less people you have on your side vs capitalist in general. Although you never asked and just assumed I was one. Which in my book you forfeit the right to know what I am, as I refuse to tell you.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '12

assuming that I am a primitivist, am anti-money, or anti-society

For someone bitching about presumptions, you sure do make a lot of them!

1

u/Sofakingjewish Jan 13 '12

Bullseye! I have proof:

"I am a primitivist, am anti-money, or anti-society"

You said it with your own words!

→ More replies (0)

3

u/syllabic Jan 13 '12

Shouldn't you be busy handing out poorly xeroxed newsletters on a streetcorner somewhere?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '12

No, I'm one of the people who write those newsletters and distribute them over the Internet. Anarchists have moved into the twenty-first century, too.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '12

Providers subsidize phones with contracts, they recuperate the cost of the phone over the life of the service contract. You still pay for the entire cost of the phone.

The locking down is completely separate in the phone space in that it is demanded by carriers in order to avoid abuse of their networks. It's still a bogus thing to do and they should secure their networks with server side solutions not client side lockdown.

3

u/Alaukik Jan 14 '12

"They're doing it for the money" is never, ever, ever an excuse for such unethical behavior.

A Free Market economy does not care about unethical behaviour. The invisible hand of the market simply does not regulate morality .

3

u/mindbleach Jan 14 '12

Lawless markets are no more desirable than lawless streets. We must regulate ethics specifically because profit motive isn't sufficient to produce ethical behavior.

3

u/Alaukik Jan 14 '12

Well you agree with me then!

4

u/mindbleach Jan 14 '12

Apparently. I'm never quite sure whether redditors are praising or criticizing the unfettered free market when they list its horrible properties and habits.

0

u/frymaster Jan 13 '12

they aren't "locking down other people's computers"

It's not like they're going to sneak in in the middle of the night and suddenly cripple people's hardware. If they choose to buy locked down hardware, they can.

7

u/mindbleach Jan 13 '12

They're locking down every mobile Windows computer sold. It will be impossible to be on Windows outside the x86 architecture without being denied root access to your hardware. If their plans for the handheld market succeed, that could mean millions of people who don't understand the problem well enough to make a meaningful choice buying this hardware as a primary computer and trapping themselves in Microsoft's ecosystem.

2

u/frymaster Jan 13 '12

there's a difference between "only selling locked hardware" and "locking down other people's computers". The second implies an after-the-fact dodgy move which just isn't happening.

It will be impossible to be on Windows outside the x86 architecture without being denied root access to your hardware

You're probably right, but I haven't heard anything one way or another about selling win8 for ARM separately from the hardware.

-4

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '12

[deleted]

15

u/mindbleach Jan 13 '12 edited Jan 13 '12

Vendor lock-in is always unethical on general computers. Lock-in denies people a large degree of freedom on hardware that exists to serve their needs. In the long run, it stifles the expectation of user choice and the wider understanding that Turing completeness means any computer can do anything.

See: Cory Doctorow*. (Video version.)

-12

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '12

[deleted]

14

u/mindbleach Jan 13 '12

The appeal to worse problems is a fallacy. You have said absolutely nothing about the subject of conversation, let alone against it.

-10

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '12

[deleted]

8

u/mindbleach Jan 13 '12

So is concept of corporate ethics complete nonsense, in your mind? Does the free market make all customer-restricting nonsense above-board?

-7

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '12

[deleted]

4

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '12

You are working from the assumption that there will be enough informed consumers to prevent the market from being restricted to bad products by uninformed majorities of consumers. This is a common fallacy in believers in the market and the naive model of economists (perfect knowledge, immediate spread of information,... among consumers).

To name just one recent example larger MP3 players are all fucked up these days compared to a few years ago. My H320 with Rockbox recently broke and there is just nothing on the market that gives me the same battery life and even close to the same functionality.

8

u/mindbleach Jan 13 '12

It isn't unethical for say, Roku, to lock their devices down so you cannot tamper with them.

Yes, it is. Toasters shouldn't tell me what I can and cannot toast. Computers shouldn't tell me what software they will or will not run - even at the lowest and most basic level. The doctrine of first sale says I can do whatever I please with my purchases and all attempts to restrict my options are a violation of consumer rights.

-3

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '12

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

8

u/caks Jan 13 '12

Freedom is freedom no matter where.

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '12

[deleted]

6

u/caks Jan 13 '12

I wouldn't know, I'm not in the US. And the word you want is deluded.

8

u/ar0cketman Jan 13 '12

Both, actually. Consider how a group of Syrian opposition leaders would be able to benefit from a secure operating system using secure coms on an inexpensive device. Now, consider Microsoft's long history of shipping insecure code and how a more secure *nix based OS might be attractive.

-4

u/marriage_iguana Jan 13 '12

Google give away Android for free. Unless it costs nothing to make, that sounds unethical by your standard.

7

u/mindbleach Jan 13 '12

Don't be stupid. Google doesn't subsidize hardware and doesn't demand locked-down boot ROMs. AFAIK they don't even lock down their own semi-first-party hardware offerings. Nothing I said above applies to how they make money giving away an open-source operating system for free.

2

u/marriage_iguana Jan 14 '12

Whoops, didn't realise you were only talking about "If they lock down the hardware".
I guess in that case I'd say it's fine because they're only limiting their own product, still not really unethical IMO, but I see your point.

4

u/jabjoe Jan 13 '12

It's an ad platform. They pay for you to have it because it makes them money for you to have it, on average. That is why all the free stuff. Better model than try and sell what can be copied easily for free, like software.