Micro$oft: Operating System Road to Fascism?

[dant]

Message from the Free Software Foundation:

===============================
Dear Supporters,

* Please join us in signing the statement: /Stand up for your
freedom to install free software/

<http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement>

The free software movement has come a long way over the past 25+
years. While we still face many challenges ahead for us to create a
world in which it is normal and expected for computer users to have
freedom, we have made steady progress. Right now, however, there is a
potential threat that could put us back years. Microsoft has announced
that if computer makers wish to distribute machines with the Windows 8
compatibility logo, they will have to implement a measure called
"Secure Boot."

When done correctly, "Secure Boot" is designed to protect against
malware by preventing computers from loading unauthorized binary
programs when booting. In practice, this means that computers
implementing it won't boot unauthorized or modified operating systems.
This could be a feature deserving of the name, as long as the /user/
is able to authorize the programs she wants to use, so she can run
free software written and modified by herself or people she trusts.

However, we are concerned that Microsoft and hardware manufacturers
will implement these boot restrictions in a way that will prevent
users from booting anything other than unmodified Windows. In this
case, a better name for the technology would be Restricted Boot, since
such a requirement would be a severe restriction on computer users and
not a security feature at all.

We're looking at a world in which it could become impossible for the
average user to install GNU/Linux on any new computer, so too much is
at stake for us to wait and see if computer manufacturers will do the
right thing. "Secure Boot" could all too easily become a euphemism for
restriction and control by computer makers and Microsoft -- freedom
and security necessitate users being in charge of their own computers.

So please, join us in signing this statement against Restricted Boot,
and consider encouraging your friends, family, and colleagues to do
the same.

If you are part of an organization or company that would like to
prominently show their support, please contact us at campaigns@fsf.org
<mailto:campaigns@fsf.org>.

For your convenience, here is a list of additional articles and
resources related to this statement:

* Public statement:
_http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement
* Press release:
_http://www.fsf.org/news/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot-in-windows-8
* Detailed explanation of the issue:
_http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot

Sincerely,

John Sullivan
Executive Director
Free Software Foundation


- --
Follow us on identi.ca at _http://identi.ca/fsf | Subscribe to our
blogs via RSS at _http://fsf.org/blogs/RSS
Join us as an associate member at _http://fsf.org/jf

Sent from the Free Software Foundation,

51 Franklin Street
Fifth Floor
Boston, MA 02110-1335
United States

 

[williamsj]

Well that MS tries to dominate the world (computer wise) has been obvious for a long time, however I would say that in this case the general population is like nature and has a way of protecting itself.

Example would be IBM's wonderful PS2 range of machines which were all using proprietary IBM chips and buses that were designed to tie the owner into IBM.

The series like the dinosaurs became extinct!

 

[Scottie]

This only matters if you have a newer computer with UEFI, the replacement for the BIOS. In that case, it is up to the hardware manufacturer to give the end user the ability to disable Secure Boot inside the UEFI interface at boot time.

Of course, M$ will push Secure Boot, and OEMs like Dell or HP may not actually add the ability to disable it. But then, if you think back a few years, there was this whole "processor ID" charade where each processor was uniquely identifiable, and thus each computer was uniquely identifiable. Everybody was up in arms about it, but in the end most puters gave the end user the ability to turn it off, and most new motherboards for the DIY crowd came with the feature deactivated by default.

And ultimately it didn't even matter because computers are still uniquely identifiable based on various hardware and software parameters.

In short, I'm not terribly worried about it as long as people keep the pressure up a bit and complain. Plus, the beauty of the linux crowd is that they always find a way to beat the system. I mean, heck - if you can even "jailbreak" an iPhone of all things, then you certainly will be able to run whatever OS you want on your future puter.

 

[Al Today]

Insurance companies spend major bucks on state of the art computing. A buddy of mine works in such a facility. They have vendor shows where the employees would walk around with name tags also displaying their degree initials like B.M. Bachelor of Arts, B.S. Bachelor of Science, PhD., and the like. My buddy has the initials A.B.M. on his name tag and people ask what A.B.M. stands for. He would tell them A.B.M.? Well, that stands for Anything But Microsoft.

 

[dant]

To Scottie:
Yes, as you say, "I'm not terribly worried", but perhaps
it pays to keep a wary eye out for M$ and "friends" lest
one gets caught unaware, or so I think. Did you happen
to read "Windows 7 sins"? _http://en.windows7sins.org?

Perhaps, the bottom line is about 'trust'?

Perhaps it would be a good idea to also have Linux and not
to rely solely on A$, or M$, which I am sure you do, but
others may not?

To Al:
Yes, I have been in, and seen the "proud badges of honor
and prestige" that some companies/people wear on their
sleeves as if by pronouncement: "Look here, I am a cog
in the wheel too, maybe a bit higher or lower than you!"
Hey! That rhymes! :D Also, get into a company that supports
A$, L(0$), M$, & U$, get out the lawn chairs, and watch the
R-war games begin!

 

[williamsj]

To Scottie:
Yes, as you say, "I'm not terribly worried", but perhaps
it pays to keep a wary eye out for M$ and "friends" lest
one gets caught unaware, or so I think. Did you happen
to read "Windows 7 sins"? _http://en.windows7sins.org?

Perhaps, the bottom line is about 'trust'?

Perhaps it would be a good idea to also have Linux and not
to rely solely on A$, or M$, which I am sure you do, but
others may not?

If you talk about trust, the any large corporation immediately falls suspect, they have a single interest "the bottom line".

A$ and M$ work in slightly different ways though. The first makes hardware and supplies the software free, the second makes only software (mainly so far) and relies on user installing it on 'standard' platforms. The former has taken quite a few steps to stop you installing their OS on any other hardware than theirs (however you can install one copy on as many of their machines as you have), and the later has done a lot to ensure you can only install their OS on the number of machines you bought the license(s) for. At the end of the day, they both want paying for their efforts no matter how good or bad..

Open Source is not necessarily all that it is made out to be, have you noticed how many open source systems come with limited or no documentation, or documentation at a price. Nearly all offer support, also at a price.

Example: I have just spent 3 months getting an emulator for a VMS Alpha server working to save $5000 (ish) over the commercial version. Question: At a commercial level does this make sense?

People fall into two fairly clear categories, those who are computer literate and those who are not (talking at a technical level, not a user level). With computers you have therefore two choices: Either you spend the resources (time) to learn more and then get all your free open source software, install it and configure it yourself; or you spend the resources (pay) M$ or A$ to provide you with the RTF out of the box solution that will probably do 95% of what you want the way you want it [maybe]

Another comparison might be that you want really fresh organic meat: You can:

1. Find a source of this and pay the market rate

2. Get you own Calves and Piglets and spend the time and effort to feed and raise them until they are fit to eat.

The net result is you pay, or you pay...

I suppose in summary it is simple "There is no such thing as a free lunch"

 

[dant]

To Scottie:
Yes, as you say, "I'm not terribly worried", but perhaps
it pays to keep a wary eye out for M$ and "friends" lest
one gets caught unaware, or so I think. Did you happen
to read "Windows 7 sins"? _http://en.windows7sins.org?

Perhaps, the bottom line is about 'trust'?

Perhaps it would be a good idea to also have Linux and not
to rely solely on A$, or M$, which I am sure you do, but
others may not?

If you talk about trust, the any large corporation immediately falls suspect, they have a single interest "the bottom line".

Yes, and then some, as you find out the number of "mickeys" they slipped in, further eroding trust.

A$ and M$ work in slightly different ways though. The first makes hardware and supplies the software free, the second makes only software (mainly so far) and relies on user installing it on 'standard' platforms. The former has taken quite a few steps to stop you installing their OS on any other hardware than theirs (however you can install one copy on as many of their machines as you have), and the later has done a lot to ensure you can only install their OS on the number of machines you bought the license(s) for. At the end of the day, they both want paying for their efforts no matter how good or bad..

For A$, software is not free - the high price is reflected on that.
For M$, they also make hardware, and moving forward. Just not PCs.
M$ adds LOTS of restrictions and changes constantly with "updates"
its not that simple. Notice how the same system/OS-ver gets slower
and slower, and slower over time? Reinstalling & updating the OS does
not change this. Time to get new hardware?

Open Source is not necessarily all that it is made out to be, have you noticed how many open source systems come with limited or no documentation, or documentation at a price. Nearly all offer support, also at a price.

It depends on what you want. There are many high quality open-
source products out there, many very professionally done.
See more below... on the issue is customization, which you do not
get from commercial products OR it could be that some commercial
products simply are not available as open-source, or is superior.

Example: I have just spent 3 months getting an emulator for a VMS Alpha server working to save $5000 (ish) over the commercial version. Question: At a commercial level does this make sense?

It depends. Do you intend to recoup your efforts or ROI if at all?
Was this personal or commercial? If you want to recoup you ROI,
then you could seek out customers for the product and/or services.
If it were personal, well you got what you wanted for whatever reasons

People fall into two fairly clear categories, those who are computer literate and those who are not (talking at a technical level, not a user level). With computers you have therefore two choices: Either you spend the resources (time) to learn more and then get all your free open source software, install it and configure it yourself; or you spend the resources (pay) M$ or A$ to provide you with the RTF out of the box solution that will probably do 95% of what you want the way you want it [maybe]

+ It depends on what one wants.
+ It may be that there are no Open-Source products for what one wants,
and it does not necessarily follow that there is a commercial product
available. In this case, pay someone to do it for you or create it yourself.
+ If there is an Open-Source product, perhaps they are lacking in features of
which one can add it themselves, i.e to customize. This requires development
tools to do this. It is free for Linux, but not free for commercial OSes, like A$
and/or M$, assuming that these are supported.
+ If there is a commercial product, perhaps it does not have all the features you want.
You cannot 'customize' if it is not open-sourced.

Another comparison might be that you want really fresh organic meat: You can:

1. Find a source of this and pay the market rate

2. Get you own Calves and Piglets and spend the time and effort to feed and raise them until they are fit to eat.

The net result is you pay, or you pay...

I suppose in summary it is simple "There is no such thing as a free lunch"

I would add: The devil is in the details,
it depends on how one chooses to go about it.

I understand and agree with many of your points,
except that where one presumably has to give up
one's freedom to choose and to give in to the status
quo where fascist polices are being forced.

I understand commercial concerns where one may
have to buy commercial products (HW &| SW) in
order to make money selling equivalent commercial
products or services for a living. One pays a high up
front cost for commercial development products, which
makes even more money for the corporations. But this
is not so for Linux - development platform available,
in many languages and types (C/C++/....)
Been there, done that.

M$ requires HW vendors to pre-install M$. So if you
want a laptop and do not want to pay for M$ OS, good
luck with that. With M$ installed on laptops, for now,
one can completely remove the OS from the HD and
can install Linux - unless - the HW vendor prevents it.
Notice also, one cannot 'sell' M$ OS - it's pre-installed,
there is no physical retail DVD with product-key that is
transferable to another party - it is locked in to the laptop.
So one basically pays for an M$ OS one does not want.

As for A$, it's license specifically prevents one from legally
installing any OS except their own, and on their hardware.

But for personal systems (commercial/Open-source), one
can learn to build one's own desktop/server system, install
and OS and open-source products. One can get involved in
community efforts that benefits like-minded individuals who
share/collaborate and it is fair to ask for donations for their
time and effort if one benefits from their products. Do not
forget the 'widows mite', if you benefit, pay up. Your choice.

Cheers!

 

[Scottie]

Perhaps it would be a good idea to also have Linux and not
to rely solely on A$, or M$, which I am sure you do, but
others may not?

I use Windows 7 as my primary OS, but I paid NOWHERE NEAR retail prices for it. In fact, I paid almost nothing - yet it's fully legal.

I also run Ubuntu for certain programming projects I work on.

I also run several virtual machines with certain other operating systems...

M$ requires HW vendors to pre-install M$. So if you
want a laptop and do not want to pay for M$ OS, good
luck with that.

I just bought a laptop for a friend that had no OS on it - from a mainstream online retailer. They ARE available. Then I ordered a Core i5 processor on eBay, installed it in the new laptop, upgraded the RAM, et voila! A brand new fancy laptop with whatever OS I want for about 200 bucks less than retail.

Notice also, one cannot 'sell' M$ OS - it's pre-installed,
there is no physical retail DVD with product-key that is
transferable to another party - it is locked in to the laptop.

That is only the case for OEM licensed versions of Windows - sort of. Even then, it IS possible to transfer the copy of Windows to another machine, and M$ will even give you their blessing. I've done it before. There is the legal structure they have set up, and then there is the practical reality of a seriously pissed off customer.

At the end of the day, where there's a will, there's a way. You can still use Windows - legally - without feeding the beast. You just have to know how to throw a saddle on him and yell "GIDDYUP!"

;D

 

[dant]

At the end of the day, where there's a will, there's a way. You can still use Windows - legally - without feeding the beast. You just have to know how to throw a saddle on him and yell "GIDDYUP!"

Was this the `beast' you saddled:
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcW_Ygs6hm0&feature=player_embedded

 

[D69]

Dant , I on Open source for 13 years do far and I love it :D I do share your vision :)

 

[dant]

drygol:
There are many who, like me, share the same or similar visions,
however when it comes to survival, one has to use the tools of
the trade, no matter what it is, as long as it is not used to harm
anyone, including oneself!

 

[D69]

exactly , I agree on that too.