Microsoft have launched a final desperate attempt to claw back control of the desktop laptop market, ironically by reversing the very open hardware x86 PC standards that allowed it to gain its legacy monopoly on the desktop. They are trying to pressure hardware manufacturers to lock up the BIOS in any PC shipped with Windows 8, so that a new (ie free code software) operating system cannot be installed:
http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boo ... cted-boot/

This grossly anti-competitive move is the logical end point of the journey that started with XP and the 'Genuine Advantage Validator' that turned your Windows into crippleware if you changed any hardware inside the box. It doesn't make the Windows 8 OS any more secure (http://www.wincert.net/news/security/27 ... ty-cracked), it just stops you replacing it with one that is.

I have blogged on this, and anyone who wants to use anything I've written (or anything I write on that blog) as the starting point for a PP press release on this is most welcome:
http://www.coactivate.org/projects/disi ... handcuffs/

This aggression will not stand. I think it's about time someone published the Windows 8 source code, and forked it as a free code operating system called something punny like Doors or Shutters. Anonymous? You up for it?

Canonical has arranged for a key so Ubuntu will boot. Fedora probably will as well.

But who's logo is on the Surface? I don't buy Apple branded hardware with the intention of installing linux, I don't expect any better with M$.
The ARM Surface will be limited to Windows, Office, and any third party apps M$ put in the app-store...and no one is going to be developing ARM apps when the i5 based Surface surpasses it. No one will want the ARM one for running Windows when the i5 model runs real Windows and applications.
They could likely improve their sale stats by leaving it open so alternatives at least boost their hardware sales to do it. But they didn't so it will be a quirky blip on the market that will leave a handful of bitter early adopters.

You seem to be implying that the Surface is the only hardware which will be affected. This is not my understanding. According to the Software Freedom Law Centre MS are demanding the same exclusive deal from all ARM manufacturers who ship Windows 8 (ARM is the processor for most of the new generation of handheld computers; netbooks, tablets etc):
https://www.softwarefreedom.org/blog/20 ... -down-ARM/

A couple of other corporations may get to buy a key (from Microsoft or the hardware vendor?) but what about the various non-profit developer communities that produce free code versions of GNU/ Linux without the proprietary binary blobs? What about BSD or Solaris based free code OS? What about Haiku, and other emerging free code OS? I booted an alpha of Haiku from a USB on my Acer Aspire One the other day, mounted my storage partition, and played some music. I can't wait for ver 1.0!
http://haiku-os.org/

Let's say you buy a car. I have sold the manufacturer of the car a license for a certain user interface (seat covers, steering wheel, hand-brake, flash ads hanging from the rear-view mirror) which most people are used to. Using that legacy monopoly, I demand that the manufacturer of the car make the interface impossible to change. When you complain that you want to put your own playboy seat covers and fluffy dice, I say:
"It's ok, I've sold keys to your car to a couple of other companies, who can put their branded version of seat covers and rear-view decorations in instead. Look, I'm allowing competition!"

Would you feel comforted by that?

BTW You may not buy Apple to hardware to run GNU/ Linux on, but you can. Your comparison does not stand.

Manufacturers are free to produce hardware not intended for Windows 8 use that isn't locked down. You can sort out a production run yourself if you want to invest the money.
The catch of requiring UEFI secure booting means hardware not designed and licensed for Windows 8 won't be able to run Windows 8...unless it's a hacked install.

If manufacturers want to meet the licencing agreement for Windows 8 then they can choose to. We can then choose not to buy that hardware. It isn't a bad thing for free software, which I view as being more substantial than a parasite that relies on Micro$oft as a host. It's a bad thing for M$ who are drawing a line in the sand and defining the difference between proprietary and open products; some of their customers will decide they don't like being on Micro$oft's side of it.
And some, God bless them, will like the environment M$ provide for them. Just like the Apple users.

BTW, try buying unauthorised hardware with OSX installed.

Kia ora

Cybertao:
>> Manufacturers are free to produce hardware not intended for Windows 8 use that isn't locked down. <<

So we agree that if MS are allowed to make this anti-competitive demand on hardware manufacturers, software freedom will be taken away on any computer that ships with Windows 8. So far, so good.

But, you say, people can just buy other hardware. What about the significant portion of people who can't afford new hardware, and make do with 2nd hand computers? What about the fact that millions of ex-Windows computers are currently reconditioned using GNU/ Linux, computers which would otherwise be heading straight for landfill?

For that matter, what about the fact that every Windows I ever used needed to be reinstalled at least once a year, like changing the oil in a car. Will that even be possible with Windows 8 and restricted boot? Will it be possible for the second owner? The third? What happens when Windows inevitably falls over?

Just to be clear, the Linux kernel supports UEFI (just as it supports Mac PowerPC firmware), and other free code OS will follow suit. Let's be clear: I'm not against UEFI, any more than I'm against BIOS. Ideally, I'd like to see open firmware replace both, but UEFI is not the problem. The problem is the "restricted boot" option in UEFI.

To quote IT World:
"The problem is Microsoft's other requirement for any Windows 8-certified client: the system must support Secure Booting. This hardened boot means that 'all firmware and software in the boot process must be signed by a trusted Certificate Authority."
http://www.itworld.com/it-managementstr ... ecure-boot

For those who struggle with the technical jargon in articles about this issue, here's a familiar metaphor. If you imagine your computer as a house. UEFI Restricted Boot is like not being able to renovate your house without going through Gates Architects who designed the house, and letting them design the renovation and decide everything about it for you. Or finding a building company who has managed to get through an obfuscated process that involves getting a license certificate from Gates Architects or the original builder of the house.

Think I'm exaggerating? Keep in mind that an increasing number of everyday appliances contain internet-capable computers, currently cell phones and digital tvs but the range is growing - especially as IPv6 comes onstream, opening up massive new address space. Imagine your car or your house is sold to you with a Microsoft OS and restricted boot in place. Still don't think this matters?
http://www.dlna.org/

Hopefully, the success of Android and the abject failure of Windows Mobile tells us that the writing is on the wall for the empire. Hopefully, hardware manufacturers will have the stones to tell MS where to stick their restricted boot, and either keep shipping older versions of Windows (for as long as they're supported by MS) or ideally, start shipping with free code OS. Hopefully, restricted boot will go the way of the "Trusted Computing" platform where MS proposed to limit and change the software you can install, and the files you can store, as Amazon does with Kindle. This is why it's important that millions of people sign the FSF's statement that they will not buy crippled hardware. Hopefully, the hardware makers will listen. That's a lot of "hopefully", but I got a lot of hope

If all that fails, it's up to the MakerSpaces, and non-profit hardware manufacturers like OLPC and RasberryPi:
http://www.raspberrypi.org/faqs

Hope floats ;P
Strypey

http://www.zdnet.com/linux-developers-working-on-windows-uefi-secure-boot-problem-7000000909/

This is getting interesting. My laptop has EFI so I decided to learn more by getting Ubuntu to boot using it.
If it really is as simple as installing a signed copy of ELILO* in the EFI partition, secure booting's bark is worse than it's bite.

*Although I had trouble booting using ELILO, it would load the kernel and initrd before hanging. I then discovered it is as simple as compiling a kernel with the EFI stub, framebuffer, etc. and booting the kernel directly as an EFI app. It will be disappointing if only a signed kernel from the vendor can be used...but on such a fixed hardware environment there probably won't be many advantages to compiling your own.

It's called Hackintosh, and you can download it for ordinary intel or AMD PCs.

Yeah I know what a Hackintosh is, and the name says it all.
Are trying to infer that Apple is less proprietary, more open with it's hardware and software, or just disagreeing with me for no substantial reason?

This thread started with the assertion that M$ should have their source-code forcibly published in retaliation for them taking firm control of their hardware and software environment, and I've outlined the better reaction is to just not buy their products if you don't like it.

I'm disagreeing with you because I can hold an intelligent thought.
As for micro-softon, I really couldn't give a damn what they do, as it is bound to fail, much like your trolling.

Intelligent thought, but not conversation. At least your thoughts sound awesome to yourself in your own head, go you.