UEFI ruse

Story: Linux Has Not Won, Microsoft is as Dangerous as Ever, Fie on Secure BootTotal Replies: 34
Author Content
wanderson

Dec 04, 2012
9:17 PM EST
Having been intimately involved in the UNIX/Linux and other non-Microsoft professional technology world for most of the last 20 years, I can attest to the accuracy and clairvoyance of Carla Schroder's article. Unfortunately, very unfortunately most of those with whom I come in contact today including technologists, are generally ignorant, naive and ambivalent about this history of Microsoft abuses and deviant actions, and therefore have little interest or personal incentive to change their dependency behavior.

The situation is further frustrated by the technology media, particularly so-called technology journalists like Ed Bott of ZDNet, who pointedly dismissed RedHat's initial concerns about UEFI as some sort of "radical" Linux conspiracy theory. Here is someone without any credible substantive technology credentials, and defends Microsoft unwaveringly in any and all issues, and for which in this UEFI dilemma he was proven totally wrong and without any worth of trust, yet dozens if not hundreds of ZDNet readers accept his ever false claims and rhetoric.

The "genuine" Linux and Free/Open Source Software (FOSS) communities and their support base must continue on without benefit of the masses who don't give a damn, since their beloved Windows, with all its faults and toxic baggage is from Bill Gates, a "true American 'billionaire' entrepreneur". (sic)

Maybe this is one of the reasons that many societies and most of Europe, Asia, South and Central America, Southern Africa and even little "backward" communist Cuba are quickly passing the arrogant USA in their full embrace of FOSS to the exclusion of Microsoft.
nmset

Dec 05, 2012
3:15 AM EST
..."and most of Europe"...

At least here in France, I'm not seeing that. Lenin said that people are happy to be mastered. I'm no communist, but he was right !
Bob_Robertson

Dec 05, 2012
10:20 AM EST
Marx had many excellent insights into the abuses he saw around him. I disagree with his conclusions because I believe he made an elementary error in conflating economics and politics, something that has always been exceptionally difficult for people to grasp.
Fettoosh

Dec 05, 2012
10:31 AM EST
Quoting:Lenin said that people are happy to be mastered.


I like to be more optimistic and cite Abraham Lincoln: "You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time. "

This quote is about enlightenment to defeat deception. We haven't done enough of it to rid people of MS monopoly and dominance.

caitlyn

Dec 05, 2012
11:35 AM EST
Most people don't understand why Microsoft is dangerous. They neither know nor care about how Microsoft maintains its monopoly or what their business practices are like. Most people have no knowledge of and no desire to learn about technical issues or security issues. If they think their computer is working and it does the things they want to do everything else is somewhere between secondary and meaningless to them.

I don't think the Lenin quote is apt. It's not that people are happy to be mastered. It's that they don't understand that's even an issue. They want things to work they way they are accustomed to (which usually means the Microsoft way) and for everything to be familiar and easy.
Bob_Robertson

Dec 05, 2012
11:50 AM EST
> They want things to work they way they are accustomed to ... and for everything to be familiar and easy.

I am just as much guilty of that as anyone else, witness my use of Trinity-DE.

> "You can fool some of the people all the time...

I thought that was PT Barnum?

For an apt-quote (debian joke, haha) on this subject, I saw a graphic of Mark Twain recently with this over it, so he must have said it:

"It is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled."
gus3

Dec 05, 2012
11:57 AM EST
"When I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." -- A. Lincoln

The only problem is that those arguing for MSFT are already their slaves.
caitlyn

Dec 05, 2012
12:44 PM EST
Quoting:The only problem is that those arguing for MSFT are already their slaves.
It was something like your statement here on the Helios website that got my ire up when Ken first asked me to publicize something he was doing way back when. First, most people do NOT believe they are slaves. They believe they have choices. In this case the masses are right: the could buy a Mac. Some are even aware of Linux. It isn't slavery, it's a choice.

Guess what? Windows is every bit as valid a choice as Linux as far as I am concerned. For MANY people it does a better job than Linux ever can simply because it supports the apps they want and Linux does not. Even if it's something I find trivial, like the latest game, we have to remember that for most people a computer is a tool, a means to an end, not the end in itself. Who makes the computer or what OS it runs is no more relevant than who makes a hammer or what store it was sold in. The hammer can still drive a nail. If it can't it's of no use. A computer that cannot run what a person wants or needs is of no use either.

To me, calling Windows users slaves is PRECISELY the type of over the top Linux zealotry that hurts the community most.

Ken, to his great credit, got away from this sort of ideological hyperbole. You will NEVER convince anyone of anything by denigrating or dismissing their choices.
gus3

Dec 05, 2012
12:59 PM EST
I did not call Windows users slaves. Please re-read my concluding sentence.
caitlyn

Dec 05, 2012
1:05 PM EST
You said those arguing for MSFT are slaves. My rant above still applies 100%. Most Windows users I know will defend their choices and argue for MSFT. Your characterization of slavery is still ideological hyperbole.
jdixon

Dec 05, 2012
1:09 PM EST
> Most Windows users I know will defend their choices and argue for MSFT.

If pressed on the matter, yes. But they don't encounter their arguments unless you ask them. I think gus3 is discussing a different breed of animal.
gus3

Dec 05, 2012
1:16 PM EST
Rob Enderle and his ilk.

And if you're still skeptical, do you really think MSFT wasn't behind Peter Quinn's sudden exit? Opponents are to be defeated. Enemies are to be destroyed. Peter Quinn was an enemy.

Go Bell Telephone on MSFT, and it'll only be a good start.
Bob_Robertson

Dec 05, 2012
1:25 PM EST
I disagree with the "slave" label as well, but for technical reasons. Slaves are restrained by coercion.

Microsoft users have the choice, even if they don't exercise it.

So maybe "cult" would be better?
caitlyn

Dec 05, 2012
1:34 PM EST
The current U.S. government has no interest in breaking up Microsoft or engaging them legally in any way. The opoosition party has less than no interest. gus3: Not going to happen anytime soon...

You know what? I'm not sure at all it's necessary at all. The MSFT monopoly is disintegrating on it's own.
Fettoosh

Dec 05, 2012
1:39 PM EST
Quoting:Guess what? Windows is every bit as valid a choice as Linux as far as I am concerned. ... calling Windows users slaves ...


@caitlyn,

It is fair to look at it this way, but the fact remains that people are slaves of their own habits.

Besides, are you doubting the fact that Linux, in many aspects, is far better OS than Windows?

Sorry I don't agree with that

Bob_Robertson

Dec 05, 2012
1:44 PM EST
> You know what? I'm not sure at all it's necessary at all. The MSFT monopoly is disintegrating on it's own.

Yep! Corruption is too expensive for a competitive market.
gus3

Dec 05, 2012
2:23 PM EST
Quoting:Slaves are restrained by coercion.
"We will destroy you" isn't coercion?
caitlyn

Dec 05, 2012
2:45 PM EST
@Fettoosh: No OS can be better if it doesn't run the software someone requires. The OS is only a means to an end.
Steerpike

Dec 05, 2012
2:48 PM EST
@caitlyn That is exactly right. It seems that when many speak of choices, it only counts if you choose the same thing they do. Then a series of rationalizations are brought forth to explain why their choice is valid and another is not. In reality, it comes down to subjective preferences and, on a much lesser scale, objective needs. On my laptop, at least, I wouldn't have a Windows installation except that it need it for work.
Fettoosh

Dec 05, 2012
3:15 PM EST
Quoting:No OS can be better if it doesn't run the software someone requires


I totally agree with that.

But my point is, there are many users that Linux can run their applications or equivalents just fine who still don't use Linux even though it has various advantage over Windows, how do you explain that? Yes, I do include seniors and young people who use computers only for social media, email, passing time games (card Games, Tetris,...) and such.

Those are the people who are buying tablets and don't really need Windows.

caitlyn

Dec 05, 2012
3:22 PM EST
Simple answer: people like what is familiar. Learning something new is hard. Using what they are used to is easy.
djohnston

Dec 05, 2012
4:11 PM EST
Quoting:Microsoft users have the choice, even if they don't exercise it.

So maybe "cult" would be better?


For many, it's Stockholm syndrome.

Fettoosh

Dec 05, 2012
4:15 PM EST
Quoting:people like what is familiar. Learning something new is hard. Using what they are used to is easy.


I call that sort of an addiction. :-)

wanderson

Dec 05, 2012
4:31 PM EST
While I refrain from any analogies of Windows users with slaves, Lenin quotes or other comparisons, I can see from comments to my post that commenter "Caitlyn" makes many of the non-sensical and illogical reasoning I mentioned in using and defending Microsoft's poor quality software.

Even when all factors are basically "equal" - meaning that the applications a PC user may prefer or need are available for both Windows and Linux, caitlyn then reverts to Windows choice because, as she says ..." people like what is familiar. Learning something new is hard. Using what they are used to is easy. " This excuse is also a red herring, since many tests have been done by corporations like Merrill Lunch that shows many if mot most Windows users have a level of difficulty in adjusting to and learning a new Windows release similar to and no more easy than learning a Linux distribution, like Ubuntu for example.

Furthermore several Linux distributions have been configured by developer organization to be very similar in appearance and functionality to each of the popular Windows versions, except new Windows 8.

it is not a matter of opinion whether Linux is more reliable, powerful, secure [don't need anti-virus/anti-spyware) or scalable than any iteration of Windows, these are proven facts by many entities including all the Financial services firms and Stock Exchanges in USA and internationally, NASA, IBM, Oracle Corp, US Dept of Energy Research Laboratories (e.g. Brookhaven National Labs), and every other nation and international credible organization.

There is no issue for Caitlyn or anybody preferring Windows, but she shouldn't make up ridiculous and stupid reasons to justify her choice.

That's what I mean for rationalization that has no basis in common sense or logic, but on the "Stockholm Syndrome" of Windows users.
caitlyn

Dec 05, 2012
4:43 PM EST
If you don't like the message attack the messenger, is that it? If someone disagrees with you they are stupid? Hmmm... Also, why the quotes around my name. I post using my real name as the regulars here all know.

You know what? I do Linux for a living. I've done Linux and UNIX for the last 17+ years and I've been an IT professional for 32 years. Clearly all that experience has made me "nonsensical". Yeah, user preference means nothing. People's choices mean nothing. I don't use Windows at all, not at work and not at home yet I am suddenly the blind and idiotic Windows defender.

I think it's very apt that you quote Lenin. The Communists always knew what was best for the people, or at least that's what they said. The people had to do as the Communist Party said to do or else. Anyone who didn't tow the party line was discredited or worse.

Like I said, this is precisely the sort of zealotry that drives people away from Linux.
Steerpike

Dec 05, 2012
4:48 PM EST
@caitlyn - I agree with what you're saying, and in particular the last statement. I know a couple of people who have been turned off of Linux by the community. Not that most of the community isn't awesome, because it is, but the closed-minded zealots are often loudest (as they are in any group). For a community that prizes user choice so highly, these types of reactions make no sense.

I think the high rate of Windows adoption comes from 1) it is pre-installed on the computer (let's face it, most people aren't going to install an OS other than what their device came with; and 2) familiarity/comfort.
tracyanne

Dec 05, 2012
7:48 PM EST
Quoting:people like what is familiar. Learning something new is hard. Using what they are used to is easy.


I wonder why, then, I usually get told the Linux stuff (as in the photo apps, the music apps, The general stuff that most people use everyday) seems so much easier, when I replace Windows with Linux for people. Of course I usually offer (*** naughty word warning ***) Ubuntu or some derivative of Ubuntu, like Zorin or Linux Mint or Kubuntu.
BernardSwiss

Dec 05, 2012
9:04 PM EST
Scrolling down this thread, I wanted to make all kinds of responses -- but everybody else has beaten me to the point.

So I've only got one quibble to contribute:

Quoting:I like to be more optimistic and cite Abraham Lincoln: "You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time. "

This quote is about enlightenment to defeat deception. We haven't done enough of it to rid people of MS monopoly and dominance.


These days, it appears to be getting easier and easier to justify adding an amendment to the classic quote:

Quoting:"But you only need to fool enough of the people enough of the time."


user1100100

Dec 06, 2012
1:57 AM EST
Quote from article:

Every time you buy a computer that bundles a Windows license just to save a few bucks over buying a Linux machine, you're shooting yourself in the foot. It doesn't matter that you blow Windows away and install Linux-- it still counts as a Windows sale, which reinforces your vendor's belief that they need Windows users and can safely ignore Linux users. It sends money to Redmond. It rewards all the junkware, adware, and spyware vendors that load their garbage on Windows PCs. And it cements the anti-competitive status quo more firmly.

- - - -

It touched a nerve because I am this type of notebook consumer. I can't find a good compromise as I like and support AMD based systems, especially the latest Series-A combined cpu/gpu platform. I can't find a vendor/distributor who sells AMD based notebooks loaded with linux; so, I end up going to newegg.com and grabbing a Toshiba, HP, or Samsung, and loading one distro or another. I occasionally review zareason, system76, los alamos computers, AVA, or ASA computer sites but never find an AMD-based notebook preloaded with linux.

I find the Radeon drivers in AMD systems can be configured to work very well and are not sub-standard compared to Intel or Nvidia graphics.

I simply don't know what to do to stop paying Microsoft, and get the laptop/notebook hardware I want.
Knighthawk5193

Mar 07, 2013
3:19 PM EST
Personally I feel the whole UEFI thing was an attempt by MS to lock down the PC/ laptop / netbook industries like they had done back in the Windows NT 4.0 / 2000 days. I also feel it blew up in their faces BIG time! Eventually it would have only have been a matter of time before the "gurus" figured out a way to either bypass, or remove / ignore altogether the whole thing, I actually had my UEFI turned off when I got my Thinkipad, and I haven't seen a need to turn it on, whatever the rootkit attacks are that are out there, they can't possibly be interested in the few Word documents and 3-D desktop wallpapers I have on the darn thing!...If I were a corporate power user who had a tablet...laptop....smart phone....etc, and needed to access the corporate intranet, well then I would definitely keep it turned on....but I don't have any kind of "home network"..with several computers....it's just my main one which is "pre-UEFI" built, and the Thinkpad which is not one for surfing the web. But I can see that it was a definite sore point when it first started, now it's actually almost another "MS attempt-that-has-almost-been-solved" type of issue. I can only feel pity for MS and the companies that are like it.....they can't see that open collaboration is actually something that could INCREASE their sales and make them more" loved" by the masses....but it's when they try to lock all the other kids out of the schoolyard that they always end up shooting themselves in the foot!
dinotrac

Mar 08, 2013
7:08 AM EST
Quoting:MS monopoly and dominance.


Man, talk about a bunch of people reliving the "good old days".

MS monopoly and dominance went bust years ago. Sure, it took a while to become obvious, but their strategy had already failed by the turn of the century and everything since then has simply been a desperate attempt to cash in on anything they can.

The pups --- and, shockingly, some not-so-pups -- seem to be unaware of the Microsoft's original goal in bringing out Windows NT -- a very good OS when it first came out. Microsoft was seeking to crowed out everybody else. Own the desktops and own the back room.

Windows was going to save money by running on commodity hardware and leveraging the same mix of skills across desktop and server.

Well....turns out other things can run on commodity hardware and running servers takes a bit more skill and mental firepower than setting up desktops.

And, of course, MS has a history of screwing its own customers.

If it weren't for Office, I suspect the mention of Microsoft would bring reactions like, "I remember them! Weren't they big in the 90s?"







Bob_Robertson

Mar 08, 2013
8:57 AM EST
> If it weren't for Office, I suspect the mention of Microsoft would bring reactions like, "I remember them! Weren't they big in the 90s?"

Office is their great triumph, their cash cow.
Fettoosh

Mar 08, 2013
10:13 AM EST
Quoting:MS monopoly and dominance went bust years ago.


Are you back from the future Dino? :-)

As far as I can tell, things are changing but, MS desktop is still dominant in both business and consumer sectors. Even for some application servers, MS still has a good chunk.

MS Office is not the only application that is keeping MS afloat, there are many little business and engineering applications that still run on Windows only that are keeping Windows a necessity.

caitlyn

Mar 08, 2013
12:53 PM EST
I agree with Fettoosh. MS dominance of the conventional desktop hasn't changed yet. It's eroded a little (Linux has a 9% market share according to Forrester Research) but they still are a de facto monopoly.

Windows NT was a good product when it first came out? Really? I worked for an organization that tried out NT 3.1 and to say it was an unworkable mess would be an understatement and a half. The first really usable Windows NT was version 3.5.1 and that was at least three years later. I even remember one reviewer calling it Windows MT for "monkey time". In addition to bugs and stability issues 16-bit apps ran very slowly on NT 3.1 and 32-bit apps were still rare and precious in 1993.
CFWhitman

Mar 08, 2013
3:01 PM EST
I'm guessing that when Dino says, "when it first came out," he actually means NT 3.5.1 and not 3.1. Most people weren't introduced to NT until 3.5.1 or 4.0, after Microsoft had shaped it up a bit. It's sort of like the difference between Windows 2.0 and Windows 3.0. Hardly anybody really used 2.0, so most people tend to think of Windows 3.0 as 'when it first came out.'

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!