From the Modified Final Judgement against Microsoft - 9/7/2006

[GreyGeek]

http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f218300/218339.htm

C. Microsoft shall not restrict by agreement any OEM licensee from exercising any of the following options or alternatives:

1. Installing, and displaying icons, shortcuts, or menu entries for, any Non-Microsoft Middleware or any product or service (including but not limited to IAP products or services) that distributes, uses, promotes, or supports any Non-Microsoft Middleware, on the desktop or Start menu, or anywhere else in a Windows Operating System Product where a list of icons, shortcuts, or menu entries for applications are generally displayed, except that Microsoft may restrict an OEM from displaying icons, shortcuts and menu entries for any product in any list of such icons, shortcuts, or menu entries specified in the Windows documentation as being limited to products that provide particular types of functionality, provided that the restrictions are non-discriminatory with respect to non-Microsoft and Microsoft products.
2. Distributing or promoting Non-Microsoft Middleware by installing and displaying on the desktop shortcuts of any size or shape so long as such shortcuts do not impair the functionality of the user interface.
3. Launching automatically, at the conclusion of the initial boot sequence or subsequent boot sequences, or upon connections to or disconnections from the Internet, any Non-Microsoft Middleware if a Microsoft Middleware Product that provides similar functionality would otherwise be launched automatically at that time, provided that any such Non-Microsoft Middleware displays on the desktop no user interface or a user interface of similar size and shape to the user interface displayed by the corresponding Microsoft Middleware Product.
4. Offering users the option of launching other Operating Systems from the Basic Input/Output System or a non-Microsoft boot-loader or similar program that launches prior to the start of the Windows Operating System Product.
5. Presenting in the initial boot sequence its own IAP offer provided that the OEM complies with reasonable technical specifications established by Microsoft, including a requirement that the end user be returned to the initial boot sequence upon the conclusion of any such offer.

Does the UEFI violate provision #4?

I think so.

[dmeyer]

No.

UEFI and Secure Boot as defined by Microsoft doesn't restrict you from installing other operating systems. What does restrict you is the implementations by the OEM themselves. If you notice this implies that Microsoft will not do this, it is not binding to the OEM.

Microsoft even mandates that Secure Boot be optional on x86 hardware and makes provision for signing for x86 if you want to keep Secure Boot enabled. UEFI on the other hand is a bit of a hassle since the varying implementations aren't all equal (meaning most are as buggy as a bee farm.) and badly hacked together to work with Windows!

[luckyone]

I read that one of Lenovo's implementations of UEFI actually asked for a Windows string before it would boot and would except nothing else.

[GreyGeek]

dmeyer, I doubt that the PC OEMs have anything to say about UEFI, and few liberties with it. If they don't follow Microsoft's UEFI requirements exactly they will not get Win8 certification and their price per unit rises significantly.

luckyone, the requirement for a Windows string was revealed by James Bottomly (formerly of Novell and Microsoft, now working for the Linux Foundation) when he was trying to get the Linux Foundation UEFI license certified. He described his show stopper in another post I made.

[dmeyer]

dmeyer, I doubt that the PC OEMs have anything to say about UEFI, and few liberties with it. If they don't follow Microsoft's UEFI requirements exactly they will not get Win8 certification and their price per unit rises significantly.

I think http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/australia/untested-buggy-uefi-headed-for-prime-time/592 sums it up quite nicely. As you can see although Microsoft has made some specifications etc, the actual implementation of UEFI is up to the vendor. At the moment its a hacked together, standard non-compliant mess which requires hacks just to boot Windows never mind Linux.

I read that one of Lenovo's implementations of UEFI actually asked for a Windows string before it would boot and would except nothing else.

Wasn't it that it would accept Red Hat products and Windows only? Which is better than Windows only but still a real lock-in. I think http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTIyOTg is the article you are thinking of.

[GreyGeek]

Ya, that was probably the one. However, it is very convenient for Microsoft that after Win8's release, there is still NOT a reliable way to easily boot and/or install Linux using a LiveCD. That wasn't by accident. My hope is that there will be enough public awareness of Microsoft's skulduggery that the public stays away from Win8 devices in droves.

[dmeyer]

Ya, that was probably the one. However, it is very convenient for Microsoft that after Win8's release, there is still NOT a reliable way to easily boot and/or install Linux using a LiveCD. That wasn't by accident. My hope is that there will be enough public awareness of Microsoft's skulduggery that the public stays away from Win8 devices in droves.

Average member of the public: "Linux? What's that? I don't care about Linux."
Me: "Linux runs the internet, it runs your phone, satellites, weapons, machines, your TV and pretty much 90% of your daily technology life."
Average member of the public: "Whatever, I don't care."

See the problem we face? The average member of the public just buys what's put in front of them and doesn't care whether they can boot Linux or not. Also if you buy a new PC you are pretty much stuck getting one that is Windows 8 compliant, with UEFI, Secure Boot and all the hassle that comes with it whether you want it or not. I know my parents when they get their new PCs in January/February are going to hate Windows 8 and even if I figured out how to install Linux for them they wouldn't let me. Why? Because they *need* Outlook and refuse to use anything else. They don't believe that anything but IE works. The also have to use propriety software for their jobs that doesn't play nicely with open source alternatives. Fact is, they are retarded when it comes to technology but they don't know any better and couldn't care less.

I honestly don't think we are enough of a threat for Windows to even consider us a threat on the desktop. The inconvenience caused to us is convenient but was never a motivating factor for them.

[james147]

But the increasing number of businesses thinking about switching to Linux or that already run it will care.

[dmeyer]

Businesses with serious Linux intentions will do what all business do. Buy enterprise class hardware with enterprise support. I am very sure that workstations should be fairly easy to handle and laptops although more tricky will probably get special treatment from say SUSE or Red Hat and the appropriate vendor say Dell or HP.

It will; however, still be an issue for small businesses where every penny counts. They will still probably face quite a few hurdles but fortunately they don't make up the majority of users so not a concern. I think the people who will still be hardest hit is us, the Linux desktop user. It sucks for us but we just don't have the neccessary pull to force change. If we had say 20% of the desktop share I am sure we would easily have had vendor solutions rather than hacks by now.

[SteveRiley]

I wish the tech press would do a better job of reporting the facts. Shoddy reporting leads to much confusion.

UEFI is a replacement for, and an improvement over, BIOS. Yes, it has bugs, but this is not a reason to prefer BIOS -- BIOSes are buggy too. Eventually these will be worked out. UEFI offers many technical advantages. UEFI is documented and can be directly manipulated via a shell utility, whereas BIOS is pretty much a tiny little black box sitting on your motherboard.

Secure Boot is a feature of UEFI that can be used to validate the digital signatures of boot loaders, drivers, and kernels. A platform key is installed into the firmware, and if any of the previously-mentioned elements fail a signature validation check during boot, UEFI halts the system. Secure Boot is not required to be enabled in order for a computer to work.

The UEFI specification indicates which features are required and which features are optional, including the required and optional elements for setup screens.

For x86-based machines, Microsoft mandates certain requirements for OEMs who seek Windows 8 hardware compliance certification. These include:

* shipping the computer's firmware with Secure Boot enabled at the factory
* exposing, in the firmware's setup screens, a mechanism for disabling Secure Boot

The second item above means that no violation of § III.C(4) has occurred.

[Snowhog]

The equivalent of having auto manufacturers install driver seat-belt sensors in their vehicles (safety feature the OEM is required to include) that won't allow the engine to be started if not engaged (the seat-belt). Of course, the driver need only connect the seat-belt before sitting, negating the 'safety feature'.

[SteveRiley]

But increasing the ass discomfort feature, fer shur

[Snowhog]

But increasing the ass discomfort feature, fer shur

Security comes at a price!

[SteveRiley]

My standard consulting rates are $450/hr. A bargain!

[GreyGeek]

$450/hr!!!!

I only charged $120/hr, and $1,000/day when testifying in court. But that was 15 years ago.