So they don't want me to dual boot then eh?

Story: Vista security feature is 'anti-Linux'Total Replies: 12
Author Content

Apr 27, 2006
12:45 PM EDT
Fine - I'll just have to uninstall Windows then. ;-)

I suspect that this is probably less 'anti-linux' and more 'you'll-only-run-our-software-dammit'.

All the more reason to: A) Stick with XP if you want dual-boot -or- B) Ditch Windows completely -or- C) Only run Windows in a virtual machine


Apr 27, 2006
1:13 PM EDT
>Fine - I'll just have to uninstall Windows then. ;-)

Gosh you're slow. ;-)

Apr 27, 2006
1:17 PM EDT
*grin* Ooops - did I say that? ;-)

Apr 27, 2006
4:31 PM EDT
Well another reason to sue them. IBM/SUSE/RED HAT...send a complain abt this.....its really time to split that company....

Apr 27, 2006
6:23 PM EDT
I absolutely refuse to ditch Windows completely.

But that's only because I would have to get it to ditch it.

Apr 27, 2006
6:54 PM EDT
"But that's only because I would have to get it to ditch it."

Vista is looking downright scary. I worry for anyone buying it "preinstalled" that they may find the hardware won't boot anything else, by design.

I keep the "recovery" DVDs around for XP that came on my Vaio laptop, as kind of a last-ditch "is it really hardware or a Linux problem?" troubleshooting thing.

So far, if the hardware didn't work under Linux, it didn't work under XP. One time the DVD drive failed so badly that it wouldn't even restore XP. I thought, "Gee, they're going to find out that I'm not running XP and void my warrentee..." but no, when I got it back the DVD drive worked and they had restored XP for me too.

Thanks guys, really. Now I know why I do a good backup before handing my machine over for maintenance. Even though it was just a matter of replacing the DVD drive, they still wiped the HD.

This laptop will be a good workstation/display/terminal for many years to come, no machine I buy in the future will have Windows of any flavor preinstalled on it. I repent, I have seen the error of my ways, and Age of Empires that came with XP really isn't all that good anyway. :^)

Apr 27, 2006
10:44 PM EDT
The hardware that Vista runs on has the DRM embedded right into the chip.

Welcome to 1984..

Apr 28, 2006
6:35 AM EDT
I think keeping your data safe from a simple bootable CD or second OS is kind of the point. I only run Linux at home and 99% at work, and I'm certainly no Microsoft fan, but if I was a Windows customer this feature would increase my comfort level with using the product. How easy would it be for anyone to just insert a Knoppix CD and get some of my data? This would protect against that. We can support features like this in the Linux kernel as well, just like we are doing with TPM. I would hope that Mac OS, Linux, BSD's, etc. would all offer this kind of protection, then the balance swings firmly back toward the OS's that have secure software with the added bonus of support for the latest secure hardware, as Windows will probably never rise above just the support for secure hardware as it's only real security feature. You can still run Windows in a virtual machine if you need it now, I guess...

Apr 28, 2006
7:22 AM EDT

why single out Linux?

I could use a windows xp rescue cd to boot the machine, and copy the data. Mac OS has been ported to intel, that will work too. thaere are plenty of back up utilities that use bsd's or small unixes to boot off of cd and copy and repair hard drives.

SCO Unix runs on x86, although it doesn't have drivers for everything.

With linux, and the Unixes you can encrypt the filesystem. No need for drm in the hardware that way.

Windows was successful, in a large part, because it was hardware independent. This allowed multiple competitors to drive the hardware market into a set of commodity apliances. Microsoft sold the OS to all of them, making money whoever had the dominant motherboard architecture.

Microsoft is now working against this trend that has made them wealthy and attempting what Apple did with their platform. They want to couple the OS and the hardware very tightly.

I wish them luck with that. I think I know how the market place will react.

There will always be a huge demand for generic white boxes without the DRM, suppliers will be willing to make money selling them.

If Microsoft wants to leave that market to Linux and it chooses to wall itself off inside a drm only community, I truly wish them well.

They will convince a few people that they are safer or mare secure with the Microsoft model, and it will work at first.

Really, all it is is a scheme to extract more money from customers.

Linux on non-drm boxes will continue to be safer and more secure than Windows.

Only then Linux will have the dominant market share.

Apr 28, 2006
11:06 AM EDT
"There will always be a huge demand for generic white boxes without the DRM, suppliers will be willing to make money selling them."

So long as it is legal to do so, yeah.

I agree with you that Windows is the OS that is now a niche player, focusing on "user experience" and "desktop". It's just very visible, since it's sitting on the desktop, is all.

Linux is a general purpose OS, so there is a much wider range of applications for which Linux is suited.

Apr 28, 2006
12:17 PM EDT
Ha, think we have the upper hand huh... until they start enforcing their copyrights on "user experience" and "desktop" ... Next thing we know they will be copyrighting "Windows"!... Oh.... that's right, they did that already ;-).

Really though, I'm just waiting for the next piece of FUD, or dirty trick. The bag seems bottomless, but at this point it's all delay tactics.

Apr 28, 2006
7:23 PM EDT
What would you do if you had $65 billion or so laying around and the world outside the U.S. was turning to your arch enemy?

Microsoft is in a race for its existence. It has to delay the death of the desktop monpoly while moving it to the network. It began the defensive battle about '99 or so and discovered, finally, that it can't kill Linux with the usual tactics. Just like SCOG, it has to resort to delay, delay, delay.

It must reduce the perception people have of the advantages of Linux, reduce the ease of them trying it, reduce the ease of them moving their data to it, increase the perception of its costs, and increase the obstacles to it being pre-installed on PCs. Microsoft has been pretty successful at this in the U.S. License deals with schools and government that resemble the old OEM per-cpu licensing, alliance with the MPAA and RIAA, the noise about "unlicensed computers", the SCOG lawsuit, Office data format changes, Treacherous Computing, WMP spying and lack of interoperability, and now Vista's "features" are all part of the delay.

The recently announced $900 million to China is also a delaying tactic. The $2 billion they just announced they will spend, to Wall Street's shock, will be used to fend off Google and Yahoo on the network while they try to migrate the monopoly there.

It's end-game time, folks. It may get nastier, but the fat lady is clearing her throat behind the curtain.

Apr 29, 2006
2:22 PM EDT
I don't care how much they spend, they cannot force anyone to use their products.


Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]

Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!