Microsoft’s attack on Linux: The hardware way

http://www.linuxstall.com/microsofts-restricts-linux-arm/

by LinuxStall • 14 years ago

16 16 14 years ago

Here we go again, last time the complaint was that MS didn't force OEMs to have the ability for users to disable secure boot on x86 machines, and there were claims that one OEM wouldn't do that (curiously, the Linux folks wouldn't name the OEM though).

But the news that Microsoft has made it mandatory for the OEMs to have a disable option(even though it compromises security a bit) on x86 machines has basically been ignored, so much that posters on various sites(including this one) still erroneously claim it's not needed.

So now the witchhunt has shifted to ARM devices, with nary a mention of the Kindle Fire or the Nook tablet or various other Apple and Android devices that ship with locked bootloaders.

Looks like there is an expectation that if a device is able to run Windows, it must be able to run Linux. I don't see any practical reason for this expectation. MS might be counting on sales through its Win 8 app store to subsidize the lower licensing costs on ARM devices, and hence locks down the hardware. If anything, they're following the tablet industry trend on this. Why isn't MS entitled to the same business model that Amazon and B&N are using?

The article quotes MS on saying the user is in control of their PC. They apparently mean x86 devices. ARM devices have been broadly referred to by everyone as Post-PC devices.

Are bootloaders a bad thing? Of course there are, but this continual MS bashing while giving Apple, Amazon, B&N and the rest a free pass is getting old and monotonous.

ilmare2• 14 years ago

Not all android devices are shipped with locked bootloaders. The problem with enforcing secure boot is it is too broad requirement applied to all ARM-based hardware.

edit: "applied to ARM-based hardware certified to run or running Microsoft windows". per wikipedia it looks like it is applicable to hw certified to run windows.

recoiledsnake4• 14 years ago

>The problem with enforcing secure boot is it is too broad requirement applied to all ARM-based hardware. There would be no problem if microsoft states that scope of secure bootloading is only hardware made specifically to run microsoft code.

The actual requirements are titled Windows 8 hardware certification requirements and are linked below.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/windows/hardware/hh748188

I see no mention that the manufacturer cannot make other ARM tablets with Android or whatever. The quote given in the article is misleading in that respect.

What you imply doesn't make sense regardless, if ASUS makes a Win 8 ARM device, they would be forced to lock the Transformer Prime's bootloader? How does that even benefit MS and "lock out" Linux? That seems be actually locking Linux in!

rbanffy5• 14 years ago

The difference is in expectations: Apple, Amazon and Barnes & Noble all sell hardware with their respective brands (Android is there, just very well hidden) and software that's seamlessly integrated into the whole. If you bought an HTC tablet with an HTC-branded OS your expectations would be different than if you bought an HTC tablet with a Microsoft-branded OS. The same sentiment exists regarding Android-powered (and Google-branded) phones that still sport locked bootloaders. I have unlocked mine.

It's also a good decision to unlock your device - the Cyanogenmod version of Android my phone now runs is orders of magnitude faster and more stable than the stock version that came installed. I wasn't happy with the phone before the update, but I am happy now.

cooldeal• 14 years ago

>The difference is in expectations

Why should MS be held to the expectations of Linux users?

brudgers2• 14 years ago

The requirement for locking is only applicable to devices which are certified by Microsoft - i.e. only hardware bearing Microsoft's logo.

In other words, Windows branded hardware is no more locked down than one with an Apple on it...and it may be less so.

Last I read the certification requirements - devices had to boot to UEFI by default but could also offer a "legacy BIOS mode." And that mode was not specified in the certification.

See my comments here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3459104

blario• 14 years ago

You're right, the same rules should apply for everyone. The solution is simple: if a windows device with a locked bootloader is not acceptable, don't buy it. Buy android devices with open bootloaders if you want freedom to do whatever with your hardware. Moreso, buy Lemote Yeelong to guarantee the hardware specs will be open enough to adapt any OS to work on it.

ARM devices should be scrutinized because not only is Windows adopting them, but OS X also (# 1 & 2 consumer OSs). x86 requirements should be monitored also, just in case the following does not occur.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/02/07/apple_intern_t... http://semiaccurate.com/2011/05/05/apple-dumps-intel-from-la...

tzs• 14 years ago

Blog post from 3 weeks ago, discussing topic that was already discussed here when it was actually news.

Does not provide any new insight or perspective on the issue. It's just a restatement of what others said (and does not cite them).

Submitted by a newly created account that appears to be the blog owner, and has only been used to submit blog entries.

My blog spammer sense is tingling.

brudgers2• 14 years ago

Link to previous discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3458679

Microsoft’s attack on Linux: The hardware way

Related Stories