MANDATORY: Enable/Disable Secure Boot. On non-ARM systems, it is required to implement the ability to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup. A physically present user must be allowed to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup without possession of PKpriv. Programmatic disabling of Secure Boot either during Boot Services or after exiting EFI Boot Services MUST NOT be possible. Disabling Secure MUST NOT be possible on ARM systems.posted by gjc at 11:42 AM on January 14
An Android device makes Microsoft some number of dollars in licensing fees, because Android uses Microsoft technologies. If all the user has to do is buy a subsidized Microsoft-branded ARM device and then install a third-party copy of Android, Microsoft doesn't get paid for its technology. In light of that, it seems plainly obvious why they are doing this.Hmm... Only so long as Microsoft subsidizes the phones, which they obviously don't plan on doing forever (unless they want to make more money from the app market)
Anyone else think this shit might eventually prompts Linux to move Linux to GPL v3?posted by delmoi at 9:55 PM on January 14
I really doubt that. Linus doesn't care, as far as I know. Most of the major code contributors are major vendors anyway.
I don't really think the future is all that bleak. I always bring up the raspberry pi. They're in production now, with an initial run of 10k units, for $35 each (this is the 'high end' model, compared to the $25 version). So for a total of $350k minus their margin, they're launching a computer platform, one designed with open source in mind. And the costs are going to keep dropping even further. This one's also ARM based and it actually has 3D acceleration, HDMI output, etc. Basically it's cell phone hardware in a miniaturized 'desktop' format.
Does this suck? I guess. But it's no different then the XBox. Except, as far as I know it will be legal to hack due to the DMCA exemption for jailbreaking cellphones. On the other hand, you could go to jail if you distribute tools to root an XBox. And Microsoft is becoming less and less relevant.The nerd community believes deeply that hardware and software should be separate, orthogonal.No, they think you should be able to do whatever you want with the hardware you pay for. They don't have a problem with people selling devices with software pre-loaded. The same way car enthusiasts would be outraged if all cars came with non-removable engines. Lots of people enjoy tuning and 'hacking' their cars to make them go faster. They buy lots of add-ons and sometimes put in new engines what's wrong with that? Of course they would be upset if they thought all cars were going to be locked down with the engines welded in place and non-removable.
I think people want integrated solutions. I'm mystified at the idea that my mother needs a laptop that requires a decision tree regarding who to contact about the problems that show up after a week.
The open advocates are trying to hold computing back to a model where everyone in the year 2012 still goes and buys their car body at one place and their engine at another place.
But none of those people are demanding that engine and bodies are sold separately, and there are no open source advocates who say hardware should not come with a pre-installed OS.Hardware and software are fundamentally a single continuous integrated whole. DDIs (device driver interfaces) are national borders, drawn by people on a single landscape.First of all what's with the outrage? Second of all, when it comes to anything based on a turing machne, software and hardware are separate things. You can encode software in the form of hardware, but at that point, it becomes hardware, and is no longer software.
...
But I know you have to say that because it lets the open folks play bullshit games with binary blobs and microcode.
The other thing I don't get, WTF is your problem with people wanting to play with code? Why is it "bullshit"? You seem to be outraged about the fact that people enjoy hacking. It's downright bizarre. I mean how can you argue against a position that makes no sense? You seem so bitter about something that you couldn't possible be affected by. It's like your girlfriend left you for a dashing open source hacker but that seems like a very improbable circumstanceUEFI secure boot protects against bootkitsBoot signing is fine, so long as the owner can sign their own bootloaders.
Secure Boot is a good idea. Even Canonical supports it. All things being equal, I would prefer a way to turn it off on all platformsBeing forced to sit through trailers for crap movies is obnoxious, definitely, but I don't watch or buy many Blu-rays, in any case, because I don't like that I am compelled to watch ads. It's the same reason I go to the movie theatre maybe once a year. Nonetheless, I am not forced by the government to watch movies on Blu-ray format, and I doubt very much that this will ever happen.Are you still using VHS or something? The government forces you to watch movies in formats that copyright holders choose. If they only release a movie on DVD or Blue-Ray, that's the only way to watch it. If they burn unskippable ads on those disks, you are forced to chose between non-skippable ads or not watching the movie.
So, yes, the government actually is quite literally forcing people to choose between watching the ads, not watching the movie, or breaking the law. Those are the only three options for movies that the copyright owner has chosen to prefix with unskippable ads.
And that basically means that you don't 'really' own the movie either. In fact As far as I know there's nothing preventing movie companies from putting code on a DVD or blue ray that will prevent it from playing after a certain hard-coded date, for example*. So you don't own property, you just poses license. One that can be revoked.
(*Now obviously they don't do that now. But they could in the future for next-gen devices. Instead of having the user enter the date, they just get to use the timezone and use a quartz clock, long battery and require the device be connected to the internet to verify the date via digitally signed NNTP in order to play time-locked content. Getting around it would be a DMCA violation)
Umm, yes I vastly overstated that, mostly because I was ridiculously drunk last night, fair enough. I should've stuck with RMS was right all along.I remember, probably ten years ago or so discussing a short 'dystopian' story RMS wrote, Where people had to pay for books, and accessed them with passwords. Obviously, it was meant as an allegory. 10 years ago slash dot, I remember a discussion where people said the story was completely insane, etc. Looking at it again, the story also took place in 2096. On the moon.
« Older Tobar an Dualchais will keep you busy for awhile. ... | Watch 30 giant hornets take ou... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:13 AM on January 14