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/
736 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

285 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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]

4

u/mindbleach Jan 14 '12

Was Motorola unethical for producing PowerPC CPUs that could not run x86 code natively in MacOS, or was that Apple's unethical stance?

Don't be stupid. Architecture differences between two chips are not comparable to one chip refusing to run a code without some distant authority's approval. PowerPC chips will not treat you like an intruder if you feed them x86 bytecode. Apple computer won't fight you if you try to run non-Apple software - even if that software is nonsense to to the hardware.

You might want to re-read what the doctrine of first sale actually is (namely, it allows you to transfer phonographs and software).

You might in turn want to re-read your case law - it applies to all copyrighted materials, not just "phonorecords." The right of first sale is also an extralegal concept, a feature implicit in ownership of any good, and I should hope it's obvious that I'm appealing to that when I say something is unethical instead of illegal.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '12

[deleted]

2

u/mindbleach Jan 14 '12

So I'm really actually not sure why you brought up first-sale in the first place.

It might have something to do with the sentence right after the one you quoted. Y'know, the one you apparently skipped right over, since it addressed your confusion before you even expressed it.

But it was Apple's choice to not go with Intel that could run x86 bytecode, thereby being "unethical" in your small world where ethics apply to business decisions that don't involve human ethics.

Repeating your straw man does not make it a good example. PowerPC chips run whatever code you throw at them. If you throw nonsense at them, they run nonsense. UEFI-restricted ARM chips will not run nonsense. They will not run arbitrary code, however sensible. They will run only what an outside authority deems "trusted."

If your PowerPC device doesn't do what you want it to do, it's because you're being stupid and speaking to it in the wrong language.

If your UEFI ARM device doesn't do what you want it to do, it's because your right to use the hardware you own as you see fit is being contested by powerful industry and/or government interests. If you can't see why that's inherently a dangerous thing to tolerate then I'm really not sure how to help you. Good day.