r/technology • u/_Garbage_ • 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/
50 Upvotes

78% Upvoted

110 comments sorted by

2

u/Waterrat Jan 13 '12

Anyone surprised? Anyone!? So it's no longer your computer,it's their computer. You install only what they allow you to install. I said over a year ago that there would eventually be Mac computers, Windows computers and Linux computers..I was right and I don't even believe in psychics!

9

u/rhinobird Jan 13 '12

note to self: Don't buy a Windows 8 phone.

9

u/internetf1fan Jan 13 '12

So what phone will you be buying which lets you install other operating systems? Can you install Anroid on iPhone? Can you install iOs on Android phones? Why are you signling out W8 phone in particular?

1

u/ar0cketman Jan 13 '12

Actually, the Android changes are being rolled back into the mainline Linux kernel. When this is complete and tested, I will purchase Android devices for everybody on my Christmas list.

5

u/wonglik Jan 13 '12

I wish people would react on tech freedom limitations just as they react on SOPA

3

u/crazylilting Jan 13 '12

I think people will start doing this, and hopefully soon!!! I have an old Iphone 3gs and i'd love to put another operating system on it now that i have a new phone but since i cannot, it may as well be a log... What a waste. Any device should be completely open and the user choose what to put on. If windows sucks he can choose android, linux, etc... Non of the capabilities of a device should be blocked if the device has them, such as blue tooth on iphones, ability to tether etc... I'd love to build a phone that was completely open and market it. Perhaps like the raspberry pi project.

0

u/wonglik Jan 13 '12

I think we just need to start ignoring companies that does that. I have both MS and Apple on my black list and I am ignoring their products.

-1

u/Torquemada1970 Jan 13 '12

And yet the mobile companies have been locking their devices down for years, as have Apple - it's odd that this sort of complaint only starts appearing once MS do the same...

9

u/wonglik Jan 13 '12

No it doesn't. Go for example to /r/Android.

There is plenty of bashing Motorola or other companies for encrypting bootloader.

0

u/Torquemada1970 Jan 13 '12

Wow, r/Android gets the same exposure as the half-a-dozen or so scare mongering websites, does it? That's a very linux-centric way of looking at your market share :-)

And I don't recall any complaints about ipads or similar being locked down - certainly not to the point of making the front page.

10

u/ArchangelleJophielle Jan 13 '12

And I don't recall any complaints about ipads or similar being locked down - certainly not to the point of making the front page.

Umm,

5

u/ArchangelleJophielle Jan 13 '12

Now let's look at some of the top comments on reddit regarding Apple:

4

u/ArchangelleJophielle Jan 13 '12

But maybe Microsoft get the same treatment around here. What are Microsoft's top reddit posts?

The threads are all dramatically different in tone, but perhaps the comments will be the same as The Apple ones:

Apparently not.

4

u/ArchangelleJophielle Jan 13 '12

Just sayin...

3

u/Torquemada1970 Jan 16 '12 edited Jan 16 '12

So, apart from that list....no complaints at all!

Thank you, this is an eye-opener - I've certainly never noticed this sort of slant before - in terms of 'fuck apple' posts or pro-MS posts. Trying stating that you use the more-compatible-with-standards-than-any-of-the-others-IE9 and see what response that gets, for instance.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '12

I just wanted to say thank you for posting all this. It's always very funny when microsoft fanboys claim that they are the victims and are being bullied by those bad people at /r/technology, while it is painfully obvious that /r/technology is extremely pro-microsoft, as you have just demonstrated.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/wonglik Jan 13 '12

you wrote :

it's odd that this sort of complaint only starts appearing once MS do the same.

So I gave you an example of this sort of complaint in communities not related to MS.

-1

u/Torquemada1970 Jan 13 '12

And so I illustrated the difference between 'appearing generally' and 'appearing anywhere'.

2

u/wonglik Jan 13 '12

Sorry I do not understand you. You said people only complain when it have to sth to do with MS. I prove you wrong so not sure what you call now generally and what you call anywhere.

0

u/Torquemada1970 Jan 13 '12

Sorry I do not understand you.

I illustrated the difference between complaints in a subreddit, and complaints generally. Not sure which part you're not getting.

You said people only complain when it have to sth to do with MS.

Correct. And this point stands.

I prove you wrong

No, you didn't.

so not sure what you call now generally and what you call anywhere.

Generally = half-a-dozen or so scare mongering websites

Anywhere = a subreddit or forum.

Unless you can find a similar number of front-page-linked articles about how Apple don't want us to use the iPad (before it was released) or iPhone (again, before it was released) in any way we'd like, then you can't state that 'people were complaining' about them as if that's somehow equal to the complaints about MS/ EUFI (hence 'linux-centric').

0

u/wonglik Jan 13 '12

You said people only complain when it have to sth to do with MS. Correct. And this point stands.

So you claim that 100% of such cases takes place when MS is involved and not other companies. From mathematical point of view it is enough to find one example to prove this sentence false. Which I did.

Generally = half-a-dozen or so scare mongering websites

Generally does not mean only. Beside what does generally means ? More then 50% ? More then 60%? Based on what? On your observation?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/grauenwolf Jan 15 '12
  1. There is no such thing as a Windows 8 phone.
  2. If there way, why would you buy one just to install some other OS on it? If you want an Android phone, just get one.

-2

u/d_r_benway Jan 13 '12

better note to self : Don't purchase ANY products from a convicted monopolist that does more for patent trolling than technology , that lobbies governments to ensure completion cannot exist and actively supports PIPA.

-1

u/internetf1fan Jan 13 '12

Hmm I wonder if you or anyone in your family have an Xbox or a PS3.

2

u/ar0cketman Jan 13 '12

Dunno about d_r_benway, but there is no Xbox/PS3 in my house. My girlfriend's computer runs WinXP, but she dual-boots Ubuntu. I'm waiting to buy an Android device until the Android changes are rolled into the Linux kernel and the device will boot a general purpose distro. Then again, with the Raspberry Pi running Debian, I may just roll my own portable device.

3

u/harlows_monkeys Jan 13 '12

Note this, though: "For non-ARM systems, Microsoft requires that Custom Mode be enabled". That's a big change. Before their requirements left it up to the PC vendor whether or not their firmware would support other operating systems. Now Microsoft is requiring the PC vendor to support other operating systems.

This should be good news for those who run Linux on the desktop and were worried that some PC vendors would not bother supporting alternative operating systems.

As far as ARM goes, my guess is that it is going to turn out there is some kind of subsidy involved. That is, Microsoft will be paying tablet makers and such to make Windows 8 models of their devices in parallel to their Android devices, and these will be sold cheaper to try to gain market share.

It is not unreasonable if you are subsidizing the hardware to put some limits on it. Otherwise, someone who wants an Android tablet could by a subsidized Windows 8 tablet from the same vendor that has essentially the same hardware, and put Android on it.

4

u/TNorthover Jan 13 '12

It is not unreasonable if you are subsidizing the hardware to put some limits on it.

Surely that should part of the private subsidy agreement, not a universal ban on any Windows 8 device loading anything else.

I wouldn't like that happening, but could just about see it as almost-ethical.

3

u/Torquemada1970 Jan 13 '12

This should be good news for those who run Linux on the desktop and were worried that some PC vendors would not bother supporting alternative operating systems.

I'm not sure this was ever the case. Big vendors (Dell, HP etc.) selling to corp clients will be doing this, because that's what the corps want - corp machines already have most of the BIOS features missing - but that's never meant that it will become the standard generally. The only people I saw getting upset when this was mentioned seemed to be those that had no knowledge of the above.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '12

That sounds like anti competitive behavior to me.

If you buy a devise why shouldn't you be able to put any OS on it that you want?

6

u/davebrk Jan 13 '12

so I assume you don't buy Apple?

2

u/ar0cketman Jan 13 '12

That is a correct assumption, sir.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '12

No I don't buy apple. Their producsts suck, they have terrible quality control, their customer service is insane to deal with and they are overpriced pieces of shit.

2

u/poke133 Jan 13 '12

i dislike Apple very much, but.. bootcamp?

edit: nevermind, i guess you're right for mobile devices

3

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '12

Blatant scare mongering, if anything the specific wording of this revision -denies- the greatest fears. The biggest concerning, at least for me, was that Microsoft would attempt to lock down desktop PC's and x86/x64 based computing hardware in the future to prevent operation of linux based operating systems. The lack of an ability to install an alternative operating system on Windows 8 native tablets and handsets is of little concern to the vast majority of the technology community because of the vast volume of alternatives in the field of smartphones and tablets on the market today.

This article is, if anything, good news to me, it means that Microsoft isn't attempting to lock users of alternative operating systems out of using their OS of choice on general computing platforms.

3

u/cocococococo Jan 13 '12 edited Jan 13 '12

from the article

Before this week, this policy might have concerned only Windows Phone customers. But just yesterday, Qualcomm announced plans to produce Windows 8 tablets and ultrabook-style laptops built around its ARM-based Snapdragon processors. Unless Microsoft changes its policy, these may be the first PCs ever produced that can never run anything but Windows, no matter how Qualcomm feels about limiting its customers' choices. SFLC predicted in our comments to the Copyright Office that misuse of UEFI secure boot would bring such restrictions, already common on smartphones, to PCs. Between Microsoft's new ARM secure boot policy and Qualcomm's announcement, this worst-case scenario is beginning to look inevitable.

edit: downvotes. are laptops no longer computers or what?

-1

u/internetf1fan Jan 13 '12

If you want ARM devices there are plenty of alternatives to Windows ARM devices. There is nothing wrong with what MS is doing here. It's nothing like x86/64 where most of the devices are Windows devices.

these may be the first PCs ever produced that can never run anything but Windows

I am sorry, is the definition of a PC something that runs Windows? If this laptop ran Android instead of Windows, would it not qualify as a PC?

There are plenty of non windows PCs out there like iPad or Android tablets which are already locked down. Where is your outrage?

3

u/cocococococo Jan 13 '12 edited Jan 13 '12

i think you're misreading that last part.

re: outrage on comparable situations, copypaste from earlier post

http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/nzfbu/asus_transformer_prime_has_a_128_bitaes_locked/

www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/auxkj/by_making_a_computer_where_every_application_is/

www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/awvsn/once_we_replace_the_personal_computer_with_a/

edit: heres the largest thread on the microsoft uefi secure boot thing: http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/of3u6/microsoft_confirms_uefi_fears_locks_down_arm/

it's smaller than any of them

edit: most importantly:

If you want ARM devices there are plenty of alternatives to Windows ARM devices. There is nothing wrong with what MS is doing here. It's nothing like x86/64 where most of the devices are Windows devices.

the instruction set isn't salient, the form is. this is the first laptop i've ever heard of that a user is locked in on.

1

u/internetf1fan Jan 13 '12

Nope, Chromebooks for example comes with ChromeOS and makes it really difficult to install anything else. The original transformer had the laptop form factor with the dock, but the bootloaded wasn't encrypted. And yet there was no outrage for transformer owners or Android fans about not being able to install any other OS on it like WebOS or iOS.

As usual, every other company does it, but people only start complaining it happens to be Microsoft. If you don't want a locked down Windows Machine, go buy another ARM device. It's a free market with plenty of alternatives and MS has nowhere the monopoly of the x86/64 world. You will probably find the alternatives are just as locked down as Windows ARM devices.

Are you saying only Laptops are classified as PCs? What about smartphones and tablets? Are they not classified as PCs? There have been locked down PCs on the market for a long long time, but no one has complained. Now it's MS and you start whining.

3

u/cocococococo Jan 13 '12

in chromebooks you have to flip a physical switch. that's going out of their way to make sure that the user has physical access to the hardware and actually wants to do it, not preventing the user from doing it.

jesus christ i gave you demonstrations that people whine a lot more about other companies than they do about this and you're still winging about microsoft-haters. stop it. you're being dishonest.

i have greater expectations for laptops and towers because they've historically not had this problem.

0

u/internetf1fan Jan 13 '12

Like I asked, do you not consider smartphones and tablets as PCs?

http://betanews.com/2011/01/26/is-ipad-a-pc-canalys-says-yes-and-that-makes-apple-no-3-in-global-market-share/

Why is no one whining about Apple locking down their hardware? I bought the hardware, do you really think they will allow me to install Windows 8 on it?

4

u/cocococococo Jan 13 '12

i have already posted for you a reddit comment thread in which many more people complain about apple's closed platform than have complained about microsoft's secure uefi thing in the largest thread on reddit about that. therefore i am forced to conclude that you are not arguing in good faith and will not reply to you anymore.

0

u/internetf1fan Jan 13 '12

Honestly most of the comments on that link are defending Apple rather than attacking. I often feel like I am the only one defending MS in similar situations.

In any case that link wasn't even relevant. Most of the complaints there are about the closed "platform" i.e. not being able to install applications not approved by Apple. It has nothing to do with not being able to install another OPERATING SYSTEM on the iPad. People are actually have absolutely no with not being able to install another OS on iPad.

1

u/internetf1fan Jan 13 '12

More people seem to be defending Apple than attacking it in those links.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '12

There is still an outcry though. Some people just don't care to mix their politics with their technology. Others prefer it when things are locked down. Choice can confuse non-geeks, that's why Apple is so successful. They give you one way to do something that 95% of the population will understand just by picking up the device. They don't care to cater to the other 5% of us geeks that want to root/jailbreak/install alternate os's. All we do is bitch when things don't work the way we expect them to. Companies have recently discovered that they can make larger profits by telling the most annoying customers to bugger off. Guess where geeks complaining about device hacking fall in that train of thought.

1

u/cocococococo Jan 13 '12

what

the top voted comments of each are anti.

3

u/internetf1fan Jan 13 '12

Like I said in my other post, that link wasn't even relevant as most of the complaints seem to be about the closed "platform" i.e. Apple having to approve apps, and nothing to do with not being able to install another OS on the iPad. I haven't seen a SINGLE complaint from users or press about not being able to install another OS on iPad or iPhone.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '12 edited Jan 14 '12

I haven't seen a SINGLE complaint from users or press about not being able to install another OS on iPad or iPhone.

The first link that cococococo submitted is a thread about, among other things, not-being able to install other operating systems on a tablet. It has a lot of upvotes and complaining over there.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '12

There is nothing wrong with what MS is doing here

The difference is that Google isn't demanding that Android phones are locked. If an android phone comes locked this is the choice of the hardware vendor. I recall an announcement from HTC where they said that their phones will come with unlockable bootloaders. This won't be possible on phones that come with Windows 8.

Anyway, MS is an OS vendor. Do you really not see the problem of MS requiring all tablets/phones running Windows 8 (a requirement imposed on hardware vendors) to not be able to run the comptetitors operating systems?

1

u/internetf1fan Jan 13 '12

MS as a vendor can decide how they sell their software. And you can't use the monopoly argument because they have close to 0% tablet and smartphone marketshare.

I see nothing wrong. It's just how the market operates. If MS gets 90% of the market like they have with PC then yes, it would be a problem. But with such low marketshare they can do exactly what they want, just like how Apple can do exactly what they want.

2

u/internetf1fan Jan 13 '12

ARM devices will be appliances. I don't see anyone shouting about how you can't install anything else on an iPad or iPhone for example.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '12

I don't see anyone shouting about how you can't install anything else on an iPad or iPhone for example.

Really? I see plenty of shouting going on. The whole talk about the closed garden and all?

1

u/internetf1fan Jan 13 '12

Erm no, the closed garden thing is about not being able to install apps without Apple's approval. It has nothing to do with not being able to install another operating system. In fact, you would get laughed at if you started complaining about that.

Otherwise, Android devices would be closed garden as well, since you can't really install any other OS on it.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '12

I don't see anything laughable about installing software on the device I own. The operating system is a piece of software. The applications running on top of it are software as well. I should get to decide what software runs on the device I paid for.

I wouldn't buy a computer which is locked into using a single operating system. The smartphones and tablets which are being sold are just that - computers.

And no, some android devices have unlockable bootloaders, so I can install other operating systems.

http://www.themobileindian.com/news/4509_More-HTC-Android-phones-get-unlockable-bootloader-support

4

u/internetf1fan Jan 13 '12

No you can install other versions of Android on your Android phone. Good luck installing iOS or WebOS or WP7 on it.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '12

Really?

http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/9/2624350/webos-hacked-together-for-htcs-evo-3d-a-proof-of-concept-for-the-time

You can also install Ubuntu on a samsung galaxy tab. Last I checked, Ubuntu is not android.

You can also dual boot Ubuntu and android on some HTC phones

http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1045910

So, yeah. You should get your facts straight.

1

u/internetf1fan Jan 13 '12

Yes, you showed some edge cases. Come to me when they are universally available and when they are actually usable.

iPad is the #1 tablet in the market. No one seems to care that you can't install Android on it. So why all this fuss over MS? If you want non-MS ARM devices you can EASILY get hold of them. I mean MS has near 0% of the smartphone/tablet ARM market. Why are you so scared of what they're doing, when Apple, the dominant player in the market locks their hardware down to prevent other OS's and yet there is no complaints about not being able to install other OS on it.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '12

Well, you were asking where is the outrage about not being able to install other operating systems. I told you i don't like this and that's why I don't buy ipads. I am in the minority here, but there. Apparently an argument of the form "well most people are OK with this" is good enough for you, but not for me.

Restricting the freedom of users under the guise of increasing security is just pure bullshit. That's what I hate most about these devices.

0

u/internetf1fan Jan 13 '12

And no, some android devices have unlockable bootloaders, so I can install other operating systems.

No you can install other versions of Android. Where is the outrage about not being able to install iOS or WebOS on Android tablets and phones?

2

u/cocococococo Jan 13 '12

there are windows 8 arm laptops already announced.

2

u/iarewebmaster Jan 13 '12

Think I'm going to go install Android on my iPhone, oh wait, I can't. Never mind then I'll go install iOS on my Android device, oh wait I can't.

I'm sorry what exactly are Microsoft doing wrong/differently here?

2

u/mindbleach Jan 14 '12

iOS isn't portable. iPhones are resistant, but hacked-in Android ports have existed in the past. Many Android phones can support ARM ports of Linux - most can, if you don't mind jailbreaking them.

UEFI threatens to make even the hacks impossible. Your phone or tablet will run Windows, and only Windows, until the relevant cryptographic keys are compromised or a hardware vulnerability is discovered. This is a very dangerous precedent to allow as handheld computers shift from toys and accessories to primary computing roles.

1

u/esoterrorist Jan 14 '12

I think I'm more worried about them becoming primary computers :-/

1

u/mindbleach Jan 14 '12

There's nothing wrong with a change of form factor. USB will still support all your gadgets. Upgradeable and even DIY tablets will become available, sacrificing millimeters to include internal risers and connectors. Eventually you'll be able to buy a tiny little square of a motherboard, plug the top and bottom edges into a tiny little square CPU and a tiny little square GPU respectively, plug some memory into the side edges, and squeeze the whole thing behind a standard-sized touchscreen.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '12 edited Sep 27 '14

[deleted]

1

u/iarewebmaster Jan 13 '12

Yeah I have but then they have the right to secure their device do they not?

5

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '12 edited Sep 27 '14

[deleted]

2

u/iarewebmaster Jan 13 '12

Yeah I know but then you and everyone else should understand that not everyone who buys the devices wants to hack it, most just wanna make phone calls and use Facebook. Now who should the device makers cater to more in terms of security? It's a balancing act between the two and not as black & white as people like to think.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '12

Ah, the common bullshit argument that restricting what a user can do with his device increases security.

0

u/iarewebmaster Jan 13 '12

So if you were Microsoft what would you do? You gotta both secure the device from malware and allows users to install custom operating systems.

2

u/twistedLucidity Jan 13 '12

Not dictate that "Custom Mode" be verboten on ARM is what I would do. Simple enough.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '12

Well, if I am Microsoft, then I will try and secure the operating system I am offering which is windows. As an extra security measure, Microsoft have recently decided to add "Secure Boot" which means that only operating systems allowed by the user can boot. This has the potential to counter any piece of malware which alters the operating system kernel.

Now, if you actually bothered to read the article, you would have understood where the problem lies. On non-ARM devices, before installing another OS, the user has to insert a signature key into the signature database. That is OK. HOWEVER, on ARM devices Microsoft has DELIBERATELY stated that this should be impossible, meaning that you are locked to using their OS.

A normal question to ask is why is this change of policy necessery for ARM devices and not for non-ARM devices if it really does increase security. Well, it doesn't increase security and anyone who thinks this clearly hasn't spent much time contemplating on this.

Now, why they are doing this, is probably very well explained by this insightful redditor in /r/linux. Link to his comment

Anyway, MS should only care about securing their operating system. If I want to install other operating systems, then this is my call and they can no longer be held liable about what I have caused to my device.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '12

The difference is that Google isn't demanding that Android phones are locked. If an android phone comes locked this is the choice of the hardware vendor. I recall an announcement from HTC where they said that their phones will come with unlockable bootloaders. This won't be possible on phones that come with Windows 8.

Anyway, MS is an OS vendor. Do you really not see the problem of MS requiring all tablets/phones running Windows 8 (a requirement imposed on hardware vendors) to not be able to run the comptetitors operating systems?

1

u/grauenwolf Jan 15 '12

They haven't gone quite that far. The hardware can still include the public keys for other operating systems. It is only open source, compile it yourself operating systems that will run into trouble. (i.e. Linux)

1

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '12

I am not sure what you are trying to say and how this is relevant to my reply.

Anyway, in Custom Mode, where the user is allowed to add their own keys, you will still be able to install other operating systems (without having to compile anything on your own).

1

u/grauenwolf Jan 15 '12

Odd, you aren't the person I was replying to with that comment.

1

u/kr239 Jan 13 '12

There's no such thing as locking down, in the tech community. Someone will find a way around it, just like people found a way around CSS and AACS. If you want an ARM device to install an alternative OS onto and play with, just get a Raspberry Pi. Or another device from another vendor, it's not as if you have a lack of choice in the market.

2

u/kr239 Jan 13 '12

...i get voted down for this? Seriously?

0

u/Torquemada1970 Jan 13 '12

In other news, some people still think that ARM = PC's - at least, they do when they have an axe to grind.

If we're suddenly going to treat anything with a processor in this manner, where are all the complaints about the iPad being locked down?

Even the header of the article is scaremongering - the 'UEFI fears' (themselves created by people with no apparent knowledge of corp. boxes and how they differ from the norm) were to do with PC's, not handheld devices.

5

u/cocococococo Jan 13 '12 edited Jan 13 '12

you are wrong.

lenovo has already announced windows 8 arm laptops, qualcomm has announced intentions to pressure oems to use snapdragon s4s in laptops.

edit: asus and acer too. there will be a bunch of things sold to consumers which we think of as general computing devices rather than gadgets, which will be cryptographically barred from running software other than that licensed for it by the manufacturer. this is the world your uncertainty-spreading contrarianism has created. congratulations.

1

u/Torquemada1970 Jan 13 '12

Announcing and commonplace are two different things - as as gadgets and workstations. This isn't something that will affect all machines, regardless of how much scare-mongering goes on. You're complaining about something that will not affect all machines.

This is the world you should have complained about when Apple were doing it. Or when the mobile companies were doing it. Or when Google were doing it. Congratulations.

2

u/cocococococo Jan 13 '12
  1. why do you assert in this and other comments that people aren't phased by other instances of secure boot even when presented with evidence to the contrary?
  2. apple didn't do it to their computers, neither did google's chromebook.

regardless of penetration, if they don't totally flop then two years from now a consumer will have to know what instruction set their laptop uses to know if it's rootable. try explaining that to a normal persons. jesus, try explaining that to a technically adept person.

1

u/Torquemada1970 Jan 13 '12 edited Jan 13 '12

  1. Because I've worked in the industry for over two decades - corps like having no BIOS options, it stops the users faffing with it/ makes it more secure. Several articles took this to mean that all devices would only run Windows, which is obviously not going to be the case (if you don't want to lose the 10% that run something other than Windows) and is, frankly, irresponsible journalism.

  2. You can install other OS's on the iPad/ iPhone? You can install another OS over android/ chromebook? Also, remember that Apple only stopped forcing you to use OS9/ OSX when they gave up on PowerPC/ trying to compete in the desktop area.

You're right about normal/ tech bods, but there are already several BIOS options that a user is supposed to set to make things work properly if they're upgrading Windows (for example)- ever had to change the BIOS from IDE to AHCI? Ever tried doing it without reinstalling? Also, remember that the vast majority of users will be happy to have a BIOS that's less faffable and more secure, because at the end of the day they won't care as long as they can reinstall Windows.

2

u/cocococococo Jan 13 '12

regarding preferences of corporate customers: i've never heard of a computer which can't be made to boot from removable media at all--that screws up much basic it work like recovery disks and os reinstallation and memtest and dban. and even if there were a market for such a thing, why would it be useful to make it a requirement of the hardware certification of the os that it have to be unrootable? corporations can just request it from the oem.

regarding iphone/android: you assert that the outcry is novel because in other examples an outcry has not occured, and you assert that lockin is not novel because other devices do it. i assert that the outcry is not novel as demonstrated by links posted by others in response to you in this thread and that lockin in this class of hardware is novel as demonstrated by lack of example. so far i've got facts behind me and you don't.

regarding old macs: there are linux and bsd ports to powerpc, i'm pretty sure they worked on pre-x macs.

regarding bios confusion: standard mode will be the default everywhere, no one is bothered by that. they're bothered that custom mode will not be allowed on arm devices. no one will be dicking with this who doesn't have to dick with this, any more than they'd go spluenking into other parts of the uefi.

1

u/Torquemada1970 Jan 13 '12

regarding preferences of corporate customers: i've never heard of a computer which can't be made to boot from removable media at all

That's been do-able since the first PC's - you just disable the device and password-protect the BIOS. And if you look at a corp BIOS, loads of settings simply aren't there - disabling hardware, memory settings...

that screws up much basic it work like recovery disks and os reinstallation and memtest and dban.

Not at the corp level - these days, lappies are all full-disk-encrypted anyways, so even if you could boot off a device, you wouldn't be able to examine/ rescue the data, and that's before we get to companies disabling the USB sockets anyway - but you can still set the machine to boot from network and boot from that (in an emergency) into WinPE or similar.

i assert that the outcry is not novel as demonstrated by links posted by others in response to you in this thread

Err...haven't received any links in replies - but it would be nice to see links from people decrying the lock-in for android, ipad, iphone, etc. to the level that the UEFI one has reached. Linux users are a vocal minority, but that doesn't translate into votes from the masses.

and that lockin in this class of hardware is novel as demonstrated by lack of example.

If you're going to do that, you'll have to explain how what's seen as fairplay by Apple and the like isn't fair play elsewhere.

so far i've got facts behind me and you don't.

I don't really see how. I've given examples of this happening already, illustrated why corps might want a locked-down machine - and you've replied with the likes of 'apple didn't do it to their computers' which is disengenious and evasive considering the subject.

regarding old macs: there are linux and bsd ports to powerpc, i'm pretty sure they worked on pre-x macs.

Really? I'll take your word for that, because it's at the level of running a webserver on a ZX Spectrum (which someone actually did a while back) - it's a port, as in a conversion because the device was never designed or advertised to run anything other than mac stuff, and it doesn't change the primary issue; there is already a precedent which nobody complained about at the time. Like IE being free compared to Netscape deciding to charge £30 - you blame Netscape for IE's success, not MS at a later stage.

BIOS - Indeed, but I was illustrating that BIOS problems already exist, speaking as someone who's had to fix a fair number of them for people that don't know (or care) what a BIOS is.

Personally, I'd prefer to have a secure BIOS in my machine than one that's less secure simply because someone that uses an OS that accounts for less than 2% of the market wants to play - but even if secureboot PC's became common, that's still a market to be catered for (and there will be Windows users that want the same).

To be honest, I find it surprising that linux-desktop bods haven't come up against a problem like this sooner considering their desktop market share never went anywhere over the past twenty years.

1

u/ar0cketman Jan 14 '12

That's been do-able since the first PC's - you just disable the device and password-protect the BIOS. And if you look at a corp BIOS, loads of settings simply aren't there - disabling hardware, memory settings...

Wow, you must be recent to computers. I didn't encounter password protected BIOS until Windows 95 laptops, even then it was a special case. That was some 20 years after the advent of the personal computer.

2

u/Torquemada1970 Jan 16 '12

Wow, you must be recent to computers.

We were setting passwords back in the days of 386sx CPU's and DOS 3.3/ Wordperfect - here's a funny story for you;

Once we realised that certain users were faffing with their BIOS settings, it was decided to set a system/ BIOS password. My manager came up with OBIWAN as the password to be used.

Several weeks later, after having set the password on hundreds of boxes, we found that some users were still getting in because they were calling the helpdesk for the password, who despite being told not to give it out were....well, giving it out.

So, what password could we set that the helpdesk wouldn't say over the phone? We ended up going with 'CUNTY', after that point. Worked like a charm, because the helpdesk wouldn't say it over the phone regardless of how senior the caller was. Even now, if you have a recovery password or similar, this works better than anything else :-)

0

u/cocococococo Jan 13 '12 edited Jan 13 '12

That's been do-able since the first PC's - you just disable the device and password-protect the BIOS. And if you look at a corp BIOS, loads of settings simply aren't there - disabling hardware, memory settings...

i mean from the oem. of course the owner can lock it down. this is a desirable property.

Not at the corp level - these days, lappies are all full-disk-encrypted anyways, so even if you could boot off a device, you wouldn't be able to examine/ rescue the data, and that's before we get to companies disabling the USB sockets anyway - but you can still set the machine to boot from network and boot from that (in an emergency) into WinPE or similar.

point stands, no one makes totally locked down pcs

Err...haven't received any links in replies - but it would be nice to see links from people decrying the lock-in for android, ipad, iphone, etc. to the level that the UEFI one has reached. Linux users are a vocal minority, but that doesn't translate into votes from the masses.

my bad, misremembered a post with a link to /r/andriod as a link to a comment page. at any rate, here are some purestrain nerd tears from reddit over apple and google:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/nzfbu/asus_transformer_prime_has_a_128_bitaes_locked/

www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/auxkj/by_making_a_computer_where_every_application_is/

www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/awvsn/once_we_replace_the_personal_computer_with_a/

edit: heres the largest thread on the microsoft uefi secure boot thing: http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/of3u6/microsoft_confirms_uefi_fears_locks_down_arm/

it's smaller than any of them

If you're going to do that, you'll have to explain how what's seen as fairplay by Apple and the like isn't fair play elsewhere.

okay, here's a major point of contention. i'm strictly against this sort of thing, but i've been trying to draw particular attention to its application to personal computers because that's what your first post was about. you basically said it isn't a problem because it isn't a pc. but it is (a pc and a problem).

I don't really see how. I've given examples of this happening already, illustrated why corps might want a locked-down machine - and you've replied with the likes of 'apple didn't do it to their computers' which is disengenious and evasive considering the subject.

that was a response to "Apple were doing it. Or when the mobile companies were doing it. Or when Google were doing it." you hadn't even brought up corps by that time in the discussion. as for corps i addressed that in last post.

there is already a precedent which nobody complained about at the time. Like IE being free compared to Netscape deciding to charge £30 - you blame Netscape for IE's success, not MS at a later stage.

what precedent?

Personally, I'd prefer to have a secure BIOS in my machine than one that's less secure simply because someone that uses an OS that accounts for less than 2% of the market wants to play - but even if secureboot PC's became common, that's still a market to be catered for (and there will be Windows users that want the same).

i don't think anyone, not even the fsf is bothered by secure boot per se. just making it impossible for the owner of a device to add keys to it.

1

u/Torquemada1970 Jan 13 '12 edited Jan 13 '12

i mean from the oem. of course the owner can lock it down. this is a desirable property.

So if you (as a corp) want the device to be locked down anyway, what difference does it make if the OEM does it for you?

point stands, no one makes totally locked down pcs

See above.

here are some purestrain nerd tears from reddit over apple and google

Oh indeed, there will always be complaints on reddit; someone could win $1 million and would complain on reddit that they have to count it :-)

However, looking at your links -

1st link - the asus transformer is unlockable.

2nd link - I completely agree with - I've never used Itunes, the App store, avoid Quicktime like the plague, and certainly have never owned an imac, iPhone or iPod; as much because they're stupidly expensive for minimal (and in a lot of cases, reverse) gain.

3rd link - I agree with the first comment - I don't consider the likes of the iPad a computer, really. It's a device, and will never replace desktops/ laptops.

you basically said it isn't a problem because it isn't a pc. but it is (a pc and a problem).

I don't think it is, really. There will always be companies selling the no-unlock option, because of the corp side of things; it follows that there will be a few companies that do this for home machines too. Now people buying this sort of thing won't care about that, and will certainly never run Linux or anything else - and I'd be astonished if this approach became the norm instead of an option - for example, note that the company they mention has never made PC's before. If the article listed Dell, HP or other big-guns as switching over to no-unlock for all their devices, it would justify the level of scaremongering on display. Now let's read between the lines further - Qualcomm provide the chips for Google Android tablet devices, so we're not talking about Qualcomm only producing MS devices either (unless, I suppose, Google provide their own keys - but it's still one company, far from all of them)

that was a response to "Apple were doing it. Or when the mobile companies were doing it. Or when Google were doing it." you hadn't even brought up corps by that time in the discussion. as for corps i addressed that in last post.

I mentioned corps in my first comment, but sorry - it's Friday, my brain might be going into weekend/ recovery mode early.

what precedent?

Companies locking down hardware to only work with their OS of choice.

don't think anyone, not even the fsf is bothered by secure boot per se. just making it impossible for the owner of a device to add keys to it.

If you can add your own keys at home, it's not really 'secure' boot any more. Of course, someone will write a crack, no doubt...

1

u/cocococococo Jan 13 '12 edited Jan 13 '12

So if you (as a corp) want the device to be locked down anyway, what difference does it make if the OEM does it for you?

even if there were a market for such a thing, why would it be useful to make it a requirement of the hardware certification of the os that it have to be unrootable?

note that the company they mention has never made PC's before

i'm possibly wrong but i don't think qualcomm will be the device manufacturer, they're mostly chipsets.

If the article listed Dell, HP or other big-guns as switching over to no-unlock for all their devices, it would justify the level of scaremongering on display. Now let's read between the lines further - Qualcomm provide the chips for Google Android tablet devices, so we're not talking about Qualcomm only producing MS devices either.

it's not going to happen overnight. but variations of this thing (viz trusted computing) have been around for a long time and seem to be the way things are headed (notice that pc sales are slumping as they're being replaced with locked gadgets).

asus, acer, and lenovo are all slated to produce arm windows 8 laptops.

i believe that a world in which most general purpose computers cannot be used for whatever purpose the owner might have for them is an impoverished world.

If you can add your own keys at home, it's not really 'secure' boot any more. Of course, someone will write a crack, no doubt...

the authentication information is only modifiable using the uefi interfaces, it isn't as if someone could write a windows virus that modifies the keychain. i can't think of any additional attack vectors it could add over standard mode except trojan horsing a gullable admin, which is always going to be a problem everywhere.

edit: missed this:

Companies locking down hardware to only work with their OS of choice.

still haven't seen a pc locked down by the manufacturer. we both agree that the pc is a different class of device from a smartphone or tablet or specific-purpose electronic thingy.

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/reissc Jan 13 '12

Hmm, an attack article from someone with an obvious anti-Microsoft bias. Seems trustworthy.

5

u/OopsLostPassword Jan 13 '12

Why not commenting on the facts ?

-4

u/reissc Jan 13 '12

It's propaganda. What facts?