- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Linux Has Not Won, Microsoft is as Dangerous as Ever, Fie on Secure Boot
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. Buying Android devices sends a significant revenue stream into Microsoft's pockets-- Linux PCs and bare hardware are almost our only remaining options to avoid paying the Microsoft tax. Quoting:The platform key is the firmware vendor's key. Each motherboard will have a platform key controlled by the firmware provider. That key is used to sign the actual SB keys packaged with the system at ship time. Microsoft has no involvement in that at all, except to ask the vendors to sign their key. If the mobo vendor wants to include Microsoft's key, they put it in the list and sign it with the platform key. If they want to include anyone else's key - as well as or instead of Microsoft's key - they put it in the list and sign it with the platform key. The concept that the single platform key controlled by the firmware vendor is used to sign *multiple* OS vendor keys is expressly designed to allow multiple keys to be trusted 'from the factory', precisely the opposite of what you suggest in the article. Diverting Linux Resources Much too much of Linux history is about workarounds and diversions. Here we are with yet another one forced on us by our good friends in Redmond. Red Hat, SUSE, Canonical, and others have devoted a good chunk of money and developer time to trying to resolve Secure Boot follies. This is yet one more Microsoft tax that all of us pay, even when we don't buy Microsoft products. Resources [sf-lug] anti-ooxml petition picking up steam "It is stunning to see that Microsoft has succeeded in actually bottling up the ISO by flooding ISO with members who will only vote on one issue: MOOX. They fail to show up for any other vote, and so nothing gets done." Linux Foundation Releases Statement Calling for National Bodies to Vote "No" on OOXML "I believe that Microsoft has profoundly damaged the credibility of the standard setting system." Rod Smith's Managing EFI Boot Loaders for Linux: Dealing with Secure Boot is the best Secure Boot howto I've found. Be sure to pass a dollar or two into his PayPal account if you find it useful. Microsoft has never stopped trying to control the bootloader-- He Who Controls the Bootloader describes how MS sabotaged BeOS. Launching the BeOS on Hitachi FLORA Prius systems is the cached howto enable hidden BeOS installations that is mentioned in the article. |
|
|
Comments (100)
Someone had to say it
21 earlier comments in the full thread.
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.
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.
> "They want you to be able to pop a CD in the drive and run or install Linux with barely any effort to at least try it out"
Yep, but most buyers have chosen a PC ready to use to avoid having to prepare it for use. The few others can deactivate that secure boot setting.
Yep, but most buyers have chosen a PC ready to use to avoid having to prepare it for use. The few others can deactivate that secure boot setting.
user1100100
Buy from someone like ZaReason.
Quoting:I simply don't know what to do to stop paying Microsoft, and get the laptop/notebook hardware I want.
Buy from someone like ZaReason.
user1100100: I occasionally review zareason, system76, los alamos computers, AVA, or ASA computer sites but never find an AMD-based notebook preloaded with linux.
tracyanne: Buy from someone like ZaReason
It's like people are talking right past each other.
Yes, people, every one admits that it would be better if we could all get our machines from ZaReason, System76, et.al. Not everyone can. They don't carry what everyone wants/needs, and they're simply not an option for cost conscious buyers.
tracyanne: Buy from someone like ZaReason
It's like people are talking right past each other.
Yes, people, every one admits that it would be better if we could all get our machines from ZaReason, System76, et.al. Not everyone can. They don't carry what everyone wants/needs, and they're simply not an option for cost conscious buyers.
@tracyanne -- As stated in my original post, when I review the specs. of each notebook offered by zareason http://zareason.com/shop/Laptops/ there are no AMD based systems to choose from. The same goes for system76, los alamos computers, AVA, or ASA. LinuxCertified.com has a few links to AMD Turion cpu notebooks but those models are well over 2 years old.
@jdixon -- Well said. It appears my only choice to terminate support for Microsoft is to buy used AMD notebooks from ebay. Who knows, that may well be where I turn. Buying used is a great way to keep the stuff out of landfills.
@jdixon -- Well said. It appears my only choice to terminate support for Microsoft is to buy used AMD notebooks from ebay. Who knows, that may well be where I turn. Buying used is a great way to keep the stuff out of landfills.
FWIW ---
Linux may not have won (unless you count Chromebooks and all those Android tablets and phones), but Microsoft has definitely lost.
Microsoft is not longer considered one of the "cool" tech kids. Those are now Apple and Google.
Microsoft is withering. It'll take a good long while, given the size of the beast, but it has lost and lost big.
Linux may not have won (unless you count Chromebooks and all those Android tablets and phones), but Microsoft has definitely lost.
Microsoft is not longer considered one of the "cool" tech kids. Those are now Apple and Google.
Microsoft is withering. It'll take a good long while, given the size of the beast, but it has lost and lost big.
> Microsoft is withering.
So was IBM for a time. They came back in a big way. The same still could happen with Microsoft. Of course, it would require competent leadership, which they haven't had for some time.
So was IBM for a time. They came back in a big way. The same still could happen with Microsoft. Of course, it would require competent leadership, which they haven't had for some time.
Quoting:Microsoft is withering. ... So was IBM for a time.
There is substantial difference between the two.
MS is a software product oriented company while IBM always had a trio of products, Hardware, Software, and Services. All three complemented each other and helped IBM to survive multiple down turns. MS software products are being replaced and doesn't have much in hardware or service to survive as an IT company. Financial company is its only avenue.
> MS is a software product oriented company while IBM always had a trio of products, Hardware, Software, and Services
Software oriented, yes. But they do have both hardware and services.
They've pretty much always made mice (pretty good ones too) and keyboards almost as long. Add in the XBox and possibly the Surface tablet, and you've got a fair hardware base.
As for services: Hotmail, Bing, and Office Live; just to name those I'm familiar with.
Now, they've never been any good at making money from these, but that's where competent leadership comes in.
Software oriented, yes. But they do have both hardware and services.
They've pretty much always made mice (pretty good ones too) and keyboards almost as long. Add in the XBox and possibly the Surface tablet, and you've got a fair hardware base.
As for services: Hotmail, Bing, and Office Live; just to name those I'm familiar with.
Now, they've never been any good at making money from these, but that's where competent leadership comes in.
Quoting: Now, they've never been any good at making money from these, but that's where competent leadership comes in.
The best zingers are the quiet ones :)
Last I knew, Microsoft mice were made by Logitech. I would imagine the keyboards are made by someone else too.
Of course, Microsoft has a currently very successful game console, the Xbox 360. I believe that is making some money for them.
Microsoft is in a position where it has plenty of time, considering the current dependence on Office and Windows by businesses, in which to find a way to remain relevant. If they are going down, they are going down very slowly. Of course, if they are too insistent on everyone switching to Windows RT based apps, then they could accelerate their decline.
Of course, Microsoft has a currently very successful game console, the Xbox 360. I believe that is making some money for them.
Microsoft is in a position where it has plenty of time, considering the current dependence on Office and Windows by businesses, in which to find a way to remain relevant. If they are going down, they are going down very slowly. Of course, if they are too insistent on everyone switching to Windows RT based apps, then they could accelerate their decline.
> Last I knew, Microsoft mice were made by Logitech. I would imagine the keyboards are made by someone else too.
Lots of companies outsource their manufacturing. That doesn't mean they can't sell them at a profit.
> Microsoft is in a position where it has plenty of time..
Yeah, that they do.
Lots of companies outsource their manufacturing. That doesn't mean they can't sell them at a profit.
> Microsoft is in a position where it has plenty of time..
Yeah, that they do.
Quoting:Lots of companies outsource their manufacturing. That doesn't mean they can't sell them at a profit.
I didn't mean to imply that it did. It's just that the impression I've always had about Microsoft mice and keyboards was that not only was manufacturing outsourced, but design was outsourced as well. In other words, they basically have a deal where they say, 'make some good peripherals that we can brand.' On the other hand, the Xbox and Xbox 360 are actually Microsoft projects, though I believe they still outsource the manufacturing.
In any case, they certainly can make some money either way. I just don't know if the Microsoft name would really have so much clout on its own as a computer peripheral manufacturer. I think they've got a lot more when it comes to the Xbox.
> I just don't know if the Microsoft name would really have so much clout on its own as a computer peripheral manufacturer.
I've known people who swear by Microsoft keyboards and mice, so I wouldn't assume they wouldn't.
I've known people who swear by Microsoft keyboards and mice, so I wouldn't assume they wouldn't.
Quoting:But they do have both hardware and services.
True, but in comparison to IBM's scale of hardware and services, MS's hardware and services I believe are still inconsequential.
> MS's hardware and services I believe are still inconsequential.
You consider hotmail and the Xbox inconsequential? I could only wish to be so inconsequential to so many people. Now, they may not compare well to IBM, but then very few businesses, even highly successful ones, do.
You consider hotmail and the Xbox inconsequential? I could only wish to be so inconsequential to so many people. Now, they may not compare well to IBM, but then very few businesses, even highly successful ones, do.
In a related matter, I want this: http://zareason.com/shop/UltraLap-430.html
Quoting:You consider hotmail and the Xbox inconsequential?
Yes, as I said, compared to IBM's. Hotmail? who still use that piece of junk?
> Hotmail? who still use that piece of junk?
Lots of people, perhaps unfortunately.
Lots of people, perhaps unfortunately.
UEFI ruse
15 earlier comments in the full thread.
> 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.
Yep! Corruption is too expensive for a competitive market.
Quoting:Slaves are restrained by coercion."We will destroy you" isn't coercion?
@Fettoosh: No OS can be better if it doesn't run the software someone requires. The OS is only a means to an end.
@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.
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.
Simple answer: people like what is familiar. Learning something new is hard. Using what they are used to is easy.
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.
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. :-)
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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:
These days, it appears to be getting easier and easier to justify adding an amendment to the classic quote:
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."
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.
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.
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!
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?"
> 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.
Office is their great triumph, their cash cow.
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.
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.
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.
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.'
only microsoft?
Where do you draw the line? Apple does the same. Microsoft just have more partners.
Also, what about smart phones? My HP touchpad is running linux. My Android phone is running android built from source, not the 'enhanced' experience that was included in the price tag.
And then you'd have to go on to every other device that has a processor. Why can't i reflash my roomba to begin with?
And then you have the storage and media format. Sony is a much worse offender than microsoft, yet you never mention it. They tried to lock you down with betamax, laserdisc, miniDisc... and ultimately succeed with blueray. and those are the examples i know even by ignoring the company 100%.
Also, what about smart phones? My HP touchpad is running linux. My Android phone is running android built from source, not the 'enhanced' experience that was included in the price tag.
And then you'd have to go on to every other device that has a processor. Why can't i reflash my roomba to begin with?
And then you have the storage and media format. Sony is a much worse offender than microsoft, yet you never mention it. They tried to lock you down with betamax, laserdisc, miniDisc... and ultimately succeed with blueray. and those are the examples i know even by ignoring the company 100%.
The point of the article is that until a couple of months ago there was no such thing as UEFI Secure Boot on a new PC. What makes the Secure Boot situation different is that it's a new development that restricts freedom in a way where it wasn't restricted before. That is both newsworthy and worthy of the kind of scrutiny and criticism in Carla's article.
Of course, all of the companies you mention have somewhere between little and no respect for your freedom or for the right to use what you purchase as you see fit.
Once little correction: Sony did not try to lock down MiniDisc. Quite the contrary: they tried to get as many manufacturers as possible to pick up the format and also tried to get as many record labels as possible to adopt it. Sony did learn the Betamax lesson and learned it well.
Of course, all of the companies you mention have somewhere between little and no respect for your freedom or for the right to use what you purchase as you see fit.
Once little correction: Sony did not try to lock down MiniDisc. Quite the contrary: they tried to get as many manufacturers as possible to pick up the format and also tried to get as many record labels as possible to adopt it. Sony did learn the Betamax lesson and learned it well.
Not joining the either/or position
2 earlier comments in the full thread.
Not a lecture Bernard, but some well placed facts. But here is one that has personally insured that I will never, ever run Microsoft software on any computer or device I own.
Scrambled in the Legal-eze of the Microsoft Windows EULA, there is a clause that states that Microsoft or any approved partner/vendor, can monitor and/or alter anything on your computer. They can gather any data they wish and share it with anyone they wish.
So, my point is simple. If Microsoft can do this, then ultimately, who really owns the computer and data within it?
Ska-rooo that. This is my computer and my data. No one outside of law enforcement with a valid search warrant has access to my stuff.
Period.
Scrambled in the Legal-eze of the Microsoft Windows EULA, there is a clause that states that Microsoft or any approved partner/vendor, can monitor and/or alter anything on your computer. They can gather any data they wish and share it with anyone they wish.
So, my point is simple. If Microsoft can do this, then ultimately, who really owns the computer and data within it?
Ska-rooo that. This is my computer and my data. No one outside of law enforcement with a valid search warrant has access to my stuff.
Period.
> Ska-rooo that.
Well said.
Well said.
While I have no quibble with anything Bernard Swiss and Helios have said, the fact remains that a very vocal minority in the Linux community seems to feed off conflict. It hurts the perception of the Linux community which in turn helps Microsoft. The us vs. them mentality is something Microsoft has fostered and uses to their advantage.
Quoting:... The us vs. them mentality is something Microsoft has fostered and uses to their advantage.
@Caitlyn,
I do agree with that as it is evident by MS statements and actions. What I disagree with is the part about a very vocal minority in the Linux community seems to feed off conflict
Fist of, the minority you are referring to doesn't represent the whole FOSS community. They are only voicing their own opinion and selecting their own choice. Everyone should respect that.
Second, It is also evident from FOSS that the community tries very hard and makes every attempt to design and develop software to work with any proprietary software out there. It is MS that makes every attempt to break functionality with everything else to maintain its lock-in and monopoly.
I suggest not to be so self conscious and concentrate on highlighting to the world what MS is really about.
@Fettoosh: We may have to agree to disagree on this one. We have some folks in FOSS who come off like religious zealots and woe be it to anyone who disagrees with them. Those folks are a real problem IMNSHO.
Quoting:Those folks are a real problem IMNSHO.
May be they are, but what I am trying to say is, they can't be stopped, why feed what MS is spreading. How about agreeing on that. :-)
How shall we distinguish between those who "come off as" religious zealots and those who are "portrayed as" religious zealots? The line can be rather blurred.
> How shall we distinguish between those who "come off as" religious zealots and those who are "portrayed as" religious zealots?
For that matter, there's nothing wrong with being a "religious zealot" if you're right. Those who supported the abolition of slavery in the US were often considered religious zealots, arguably correctly.
For that matter, there's nothing wrong with being a "religious zealot" if you're right. Those who supported the abolition of slavery in the US were often considered religious zealots, arguably correctly.
You can be right and still drive people away. How important is Linux adoption to you? If it isn't important then there is no reason to oppose zealotry. If you think it very important, as I do, then it becomes an issue.
Please note that as of tonight that I will be celebrating a holiday which some (i.e.: Christopher Hitchens) have described in really perjorative terms as, in part, a celebration of religious zealotry. (Hitchens, in a major rewrite of history also called it a victory for backward peasants over Greek Epicurianism, but I digress.) The religious zeal of the Maccabees, and their desire to practice their religion, was a major motivation for overthrowing the Seleucid Empire and reestablishing a free Jewish state in Judea. The did so against overwhelming odds and a huge disparity in men and arms.
I mention that because I don't believe that religious zeal is necessarily a bad thing. It can be harnessed for good or for evil. In the case of turning an operating system into a religion I would argue that it is neither good nor evil but that it isn't particularly helpful.
Please note that as of tonight that I will be celebrating a holiday which some (i.e.: Christopher Hitchens) have described in really perjorative terms as, in part, a celebration of religious zealotry. (Hitchens, in a major rewrite of history also called it a victory for backward peasants over Greek Epicurianism, but I digress.) The religious zeal of the Maccabees, and their desire to practice their religion, was a major motivation for overthrowing the Seleucid Empire and reestablishing a free Jewish state in Judea. The did so against overwhelming odds and a huge disparity in men and arms.
I mention that because I don't believe that religious zeal is necessarily a bad thing. It can be harnessed for good or for evil. In the case of turning an operating system into a religion I would argue that it is neither good nor evil but that it isn't particularly helpful.
> You can be right and still drive people away.
Yes, but if the alternative is being wrong?
I'll agree that there are far too many free software supporters who are obnoxious jerks about the matter, but every group of people of any size winds up getting it's share of jerks. There's no way to avoid it, and reasonable people realize that's the case and that they're not representative of the overall group. There are lots of obnoxious Windows using jerks, and no one claims that's a reason not to use Windows.
Now, I can think of one recent and obvious example where jerks were portrayed as representative of the entire group, but in that case those doing the portraying had their own agenda to push.
Yes, but if the alternative is being wrong?
I'll agree that there are far too many free software supporters who are obnoxious jerks about the matter, but every group of people of any size winds up getting it's share of jerks. There's no way to avoid it, and reasonable people realize that's the case and that they're not representative of the overall group. There are lots of obnoxious Windows using jerks, and no one claims that's a reason not to use Windows.
Now, I can think of one recent and obvious example where jerks were portrayed as representative of the entire group, but in that case those doing the portraying had their own agenda to push.
I suggest that for every "Stallman-ite" jerk, there's at least one "Stallman-basher" jerk -- and the bashers usually know a lot less about Stallman's actual position.
In my experience, more often than not, the sum total of the "basher's" reliable knowledge is that Stallman for some reason insists on the term "Gnu/Linux", and the rest is pure fantasy and supposition -- but that doesn't stop them from explaining in detail just how wrong and stupid Stallman is.
In my experience, more often than not, the sum total of the "basher's" reliable knowledge is that Stallman for some reason insists on the term "Gnu/Linux", and the rest is pure fantasy and supposition -- but that doesn't stop them from explaining in detail just how wrong and stupid Stallman is.
> ...but that doesn't stop them from explaining in detail just how wrong and stupid Stallman is.
Stallman's positions are never stupid ones. They may be wrong, misinformed, or biased; but never stupid. And given the consistency and correctness of his stances over the years, I'm usually inclined to give him the benefit of a doubt when it comes to software issues.
Stallman's positions are never stupid ones. They may be wrong, misinformed, or biased; but never stupid. And given the consistency and correctness of his stances over the years, I'm usually inclined to give him the benefit of a doubt when it comes to software issues.
Things that smell like fish.
Quoting:Things that smell like fish....are eaten by bears. Is that what you were trying to say?
RMS is not stupid. However, he is inflexible to the point of impractical. He also has said some pretty offensive things at times. He lost the benefit of the doubt from me a long time ago. OTOH, that doesn't in any way diminish the positive things he has contributed.
> However, he is inflexible to the point of impractical.
Of course. Practical people do what works. Stallman wants more than that. But by aiming for more than what's possible, you sometimes expand the range of what's possible.
> He also has said some pretty offensive things at times.
Stallman is a jerk. Most people who have met him will admit that. I think even he will admit that. That doesn't change whether he's right or not.
Of course. Practical people do what works. Stallman wants more than that. But by aiming for more than what's possible, you sometimes expand the range of what's possible.
> He also has said some pretty offensive things at times.
Stallman is a jerk. Most people who have met him will admit that. I think even he will admit that. That doesn't change whether he's right or not.
Quoting:Stallman is a jerk. Most people who have met him will admit that. I think even he will admit that. That doesn't change whether he's right or not.I agree completely. That's a fair assessment of how I see RMS. Sometimes I agree with him, more often I don't but I can see where he's coming from.
Although computers are tools, they are tools that play an increasingly larger part in every aspect of pretty much everything human activity, and as such I steer clear from companies that try their darnest to control the industry. A company should take its best shot, put its wares on the table and let customers sort things out. That ensures we keep that great free market characteristic: freedom of choice. However, it has to be sustainable.
Therefore I never put personal shot-term convenience before long-term public interest, and business ethics weigh a lot in my purchase decisions. Because I know, failure to take ethics into account is bound to come back and bite me and anyone else in the rear sooner or later.
So microsoft, intel and nvidia are de facto barred from my computer shopping lists, and it'll take them some effort to make me consider them a viable alternative, even more so recommend them.
I think it's really a shame that people seem so narrow-minded and focus only on whatever suits them best here and now. Guess they'll never learn.
All I know is if Microsoft or Apple turned desktop search into a marketing engine, we'd be screaming bloody murder.
But it's OK if Ubuntu does it.
Canonical is a private, privately held, for-profit company. I value much of the work they do, but I'm in no way confusing them with the Debian Project.
But it's OK if Ubuntu does it.
Canonical is a private, privately held, for-profit company. I value much of the work they do, but I'm in no way confusing them with the Debian Project.
I would like to add my two cents to the issue. I am a recently "converted" user of Linux, and after having my "eyes opened" I realize that most of the free world has had the wool pulled over their eyes in regards to software. Most companies are under the belief that Microsoft products are the ONLY way to go when trying to achieve their goals, which is untrue. Granted there are quite a few companies that use Linux (Red Hat, SuSE Enterprise Linux, Oracle etc.) but the majority of the Fortune 500 still have their stake in a Microsoft world. I don't "preach" the Linux gospel per se, but I have "turned" my brother...my sister...my cousins. my son, and even my mother over to "The Dark Side" they've made the change, and they're all happier for it. Will they ever need to run Windows again in their lifetime?....maybe, will they continue to learn and explore more in regards to FOSS, Open Source and Linux?...hopefully. In the end it's all about "choice" THAT was the Number 1 reason why I left the Windows camp, I was tired of being "told" what my desktop SHOULD be.....what I was allowed and NOT allowed to do with the kernel, source files etc. I have noticed this one thing: I have never seen "ads" for Linux splattered all over the TV like I have seen for Microsoft and Apple....maybe this is because if you DON'T know...then you don't KNOW? either way...its all a matter of choice...I've made the choice to join the "Open Source Army" if you will and I'm never going back...no matter what diabolical scheme comes from the proprietary software makers!......and that's all I jave to say! LoL!
Cheers!
Cheers!
Guys:
I'm going to say something that will rock your world, so you'd better sit down.
Comfy? Better be, 'cos this will knock your socks off:
It's freakin' 2013!!!!!
Yes, Microsoft Kerberos is a broken atrocity, but it's a broken atrocity that goes back to Windows 2000. More than a dozen years ago. Eternity in tech terms.
The Peter Quinn blow-up was in 2005, and Microsoft was already a stuck pig in decline.
The Microsoft attack on netbooks is more recent: ramping up in 2008-2009, but still a long time in tech terms. Worse, it's an attack that blew up in Microsoft's face: Windows revenue fell by a billion dollars in 2008. Not only did people buy netbooks, but the stripped-down Windows Microsoft made available was not the cash cow that full-blown Windows was.
Is Microsoft a mean and nasty company with lots of money?
Sure. So what? They are in deep decline, dropping daily, and, by all indications, clueless. The can make trouble because they have resources, but they are more pitiful than fearsome.
Want scariness?
Think Apple, Google, Oracle, Comcast/Xfinity
I'm going to say something that will rock your world, so you'd better sit down.
Comfy? Better be, 'cos this will knock your socks off:
It's freakin' 2013!!!!!
Yes, Microsoft Kerberos is a broken atrocity, but it's a broken atrocity that goes back to Windows 2000. More than a dozen years ago. Eternity in tech terms.
The Peter Quinn blow-up was in 2005, and Microsoft was already a stuck pig in decline.
The Microsoft attack on netbooks is more recent: ramping up in 2008-2009, but still a long time in tech terms. Worse, it's an attack that blew up in Microsoft's face: Windows revenue fell by a billion dollars in 2008. Not only did people buy netbooks, but the stripped-down Windows Microsoft made available was not the cash cow that full-blown Windows was.
Is Microsoft a mean and nasty company with lots of money?
Sure. So what? They are in deep decline, dropping daily, and, by all indications, clueless. The can make trouble because they have resources, but they are more pitiful than fearsome.
Want scariness?
Think Apple, Google, Oracle, Comcast/Xfinity
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Those that can afford it consider seriously spending the extra to buy a new ZaREason or other Pre installed Linux, rather than going for the cheaper Windows pre install.
Oh, and whether you can afford a new machine or not, when you don't buy a new machine with Windows, let the OEMs know that you didn't buy from them, because Linux wasn't an option.