10.09.11

With OEM Distortion, Microsoft Need Not Compete

Posted in GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 11:31 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Policing the stores to ban competition

Sale sign

Summary: New blog posts about Microsoft’s attempt to boot Linux out of existence by not letting it boot

SEVERAL times before we have written about the UEFI scam perpetrated by Microsoft, noting that Microsoft is trying yet again what it tried several times in the past. It wishes to make it illegal or impractical to run GNU/Linux, which is its #1 competitor. Earlier today we found some interesting blog posts on this subject, which is relevant to this Web site. Here are a couple:

  • Why I failed the Windows 8 Logo Program

    I discovered that one of the requirements to apply for the Windows 8 Logo Program, before I boot up, is to have secure boot enabled by default. I also must carry several sets of keys, all for the sake of prevention. According to MS, if I do not, some malicious thoughts could hijack the boot process and then I would be cast into a zombie state, controlled by some criminal or terrorist. Thus, I might end writing and sending millions of useless postcards…That’s scary, isn’t it?

    So, the basic idea of protection from criminals sounds appealing. Yet, I started asking some questions and found some problematic issues hidden below the surface of the venerable claim of security…

  • Microsoft: Make Linux-Proof Computers, or else

    All of this is to help Microsoft cope with two uncomfortable realities:

    1. After twenty years of trying, Microsoft still seems constitutionally incapable of writing secure software. Other operating systems run securely on standard PCs without any fuss, but Microsoft claims they need special hardware to do this. Perhaps this is because Microsoft has explicitly written many security flaws into their software. (Prediction: UEFI or no, Windows 8 will be compromised. Frequently.)

    2. After twenty years of market domination, Microsoft is starting to lose market share. Even with 95% of the desktop market, billions of dollars in the bank, and manufacturers salivating to do their bidding, users are turning away from Microsoft to safer, cheaper, more reliable alternatives, like Linux, Unix, or Mac. And Microsoft hasn’t been able to win them back with a better product…because they can’t make a better product.

We shall see if Microsoft backtracks and is forced to backtrack.

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Reddit
  • email

This post is also available in Gemini over at:

gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2011/10/09/cannot-boot-linux/

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

9 Comments

  1. Michael said,

    October 9, 2011 at 11:56 am

    Gravatar

    You attack MS for not focusing on security.
    You attack MS for focusing on security.

    What a biased and foolish world view you have.

    XFaCE Reply:

    LOL. “Security”? Yeah, and I wire my jaw shut so I am “secure” from ingesting poison.

    http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/05/who_owns_your_c.html

    These kinds of secure boot systems are false security. It most certainly will not fix the majority of Windows security problems.

    Michael Reply:

    It is not designed to solve all problems. There is no magic bullet that will.

    But lovely straw man. Does he have a name? :)

    Will Reply:

    Ok, then. Please suggest your own solution that takes into account current OEM market reality (some might say distortion) and still enables customers to easily choose their own operating system.

    Michael Reply:

    What is stopping people from picking their own OS now?

    You can get a computer with Windows pre-installed… or OS X… or Ubuntu… or Trisquel… or Fedora… etc.

    Some of these choices are more common than others. Sure. There are no low end machines with OS X, even if I might want one. Oh well. And even if I want a computer with, say, Ubuntu, that does not mean *any* OEM is obligated to carry it for me.

    Why are so many who support “free” software so against a “free” market? Why are so many for their own “choice” so ready to rip “choice” from others and insist those others owe them computers with the OS *they* want and not the OS (or OSs) that the company thinks will serve them and their customers best?

    Jose_X Reply:

    “Free markets” are nonsense. If you want an anarchist paradise, the US is not and has never been your place to shop or produce.

    You can’t deny established software platforms can acquire a huge amount of lock-in as happened especially with the PC market leveraging a wide range of third party hardware and software. Just compare with eating pizza and then bread sticks from different vendors. The software platforms market is distorted. It is not a “free” market (even in the US sense) by any stretch of the imagination. And platforms are hardly cloned by any competitor to the degree to enable seamless access to customer existing data.

    We can also argue that closed software comes with externalities many consumers don’t realize until it is too late and such software should be taxed in order to try and create a more balanced competitive market place beneficial to society. The network effect is one example where vendors frequently face a large headwind in supporting low volume platforms.

    Again, we can contrast with many other areas of society. We’ll find these other areas either don’t much have this concept of lock-in or do but have established non-moving standards. Software is just too complex and easy to change on the fly by the “monopolist”.

    Jobs, with significant artistic insight and business skills, was hardly able to dent the PC market on motorola chips. When the Mac moved to intel, ample supporting hardware, and leveraged open source software, they only increased their share a few percentage points.

    Michael Reply:

    > “Free markets” are nonsense. If you want an anarchist
    > paradise, the US is not and has never been your place
    > to shop or produce.

    I do not believe in unfettered Capitalism, but I do believe in the basic ideas.

    > You can’t deny established software platforms can
    > acquire a huge amount of lock-in as happened
    > especially with the PC market leveraging a wide range
    > of third party hardware and software.

    Of course. It makes it hard for others to compete well – you are competing not just with a system but an ecosystem. OS X, iOS, Android and others have shown this can happen.

    > Just compare with eating pizza and then bread sticks
    > from different vendors. The software platforms market
    > is distorted. It is not a “free” market (even in the
    > US sense) by any stretch of the imagination. And
    > platforms are hardly cloned by any competitor to the
    > degree to enable seamless access to customer existing
    > data.

    Again: no doubt – it is hard to create a new ecosystem. Heck, can you imagine trying to create a brand new networking system to compete with the massive ecosystem we know as the Internet? I cannot imagine how one would even start. But that does not mean I think the government should come in and cripple the Internet to give other ideas a “fair chance”.

    > We can also argue that closed software comes with
    > externalities many consumers don’t realize until it
    > is too late and such software should be taxed in
    > order to try and create a more balanced competitive
    > market place beneficial to society. The network
    > effect is one example where vendors frequently face a
    > large headwind in supporting low volume platforms.

    I would disagree with an Internet tax to help create competitors to it. I would also not want to see Android devices taxed to help get MS into the market, even if MS is having a large amount of problem getting there on its own. For the same reason I do not want Windows and OS X machines taxed to help Linux or BSD or any other competitor.

    > Again, we can contrast with many other areas of
    > society. We’ll find these other areas either don’t
    > much have this concept of lock-in or do but have
    > established non-moving standards. Software is just
    > too complex and easy to change on the fly by the
    > “monopolist”.

    Easy to change? Change it too much and you toss out the advantage of your ecosystem. Many complained when Apple did this with the original Mac (tossing the Apple II ecosystem) and again when they did it with OS X (largely tossing out the Classic Mac ecosystem – and now Rosetta is even gone).

    > Jobs, with significant artistic insight and business
    > skills, was hardly able to dent the PC market on
    > motorola chips. When the Mac moved to intel, ample
    > supporting hardware, and leveraged open source
    > software, they only increased their share a few
    > percentage points.

    If Apple wants to increase it market share they would have to earn it. They never have. They do not join the race to the bottom and sell tons of low end machines of questionable quality and low margins. Apple, by choice, sells higher end machines with prices to match (comparable to other high end machines). In that market (or sub-market) Apple does very, very well (I have seen reports where they have over 90% market share in that price range). Of course, if they joined the race to the bottom, they would lose much of that share at the top.

    But all of this is far off the topic of whining that *one* thing done to boost security is not solving all security problems. I just find that to be a bizarre and silly claim.

    Jose_X Reply:

    Off topic or not, I wanted to address a couple of things from your reply.

    >> But that does not mean I think the government should come in and cripple the Internet to give other ideas a “fair chance”.

    The Internet is not owned by anyone. Yes, I would want it to be “crippled” taxed restricted.. whatever if it was owned by one person.

    Windows platform is owned by one entity. The Internet is not.

    >> Change it too much and you toss out the advantage of your ecosystem.

    I am talking about changes that break interoperability of competitors. Eg, if Windows would crash openoffice a little too frequently (eg, give it a less than ideal system call pointer). There are many many ways.. in fact, just evolving software creates “bugs” naturally. Your firm has inside access to these bugs, but competitors have a long reverse engineering task ahead of them to try and keep up.

    Michael Reply:

    > Off topic or not, I wanted to address a couple of
    > things from your reply.

    OK.

    >> But that does not mean I think the government should
    >> come in and cripple the Internet to give other ideas
    >> a “fair chance”.
    >
    > The Internet is not owned by anyone. Yes, I would
    > want it to be “crippled” taxed restricted.. whatever
    > if it was owned by one person.
    >
    > Windows platform is owned by one entity. The Internet
    > is not.

    This is not in contention. But PCs are not made by any one entity, either. Anyone can make one – look at all of the small white box makers.

    Even with MS there is competition: and in many areas where MS competes they do not do so all that well. Even in the server room they are hardly a monopoly. The only place they have anything approaching a monopoly is the desktop, and with Apple having over 10% of the home market (in the US), that can hardly be said to be even an “effective monopoly” any more. Sure, they have the lion’s share of the desktop market – but for most of the market (the low end, where most sales are) they have no effective competition. OS X is not available in that segment of the market and no desktop Linux distro offers a truly competitive experience for most users (and even if one did, the desktop Linux market is so fragmented it is competing against itself more than against MS).

    Desktop Linux is getting better. And someday, I hope, it will earn a place in that market – but it has yet to do so. This is not the fault of MS. Heck, if the open source community would find a way to present itself to the market in a more unified and coherent way it would likely earn a lot of users even as it is now – but that is not the nature of the open source world. And with people associating open source with the likes of Stallman, this hurts the cause even more.

    Do not get me wrong: tying a cute message and a pretty face to open source would not suddenly make it become truly competitive, but it would bring interest, users and – with that – improvements.

    >> Change it too much and you toss out the advantage of
    >> your ecosystem.
    >
    > I am talking about changes that break
    > interoperability of competitors. Eg, if Windows would
    > crash openoffice a little too frequently (eg, give it
    > a less than ideal system call pointer). There are
    > many many ways.. in fact, just evolving software
    > creates “bugs” naturally. Your firm has inside access
    > to these bugs, but competitors have a long reverse
    > engineering task ahead of them to try and keep up.

    Sure: Apple has an advantage with Safari on the Mac… but Firefox and Chrome do well. MS has some advantages with MS Office on Windows – but Apple has the advantage with iWork on the Mac. So be it. Both Apple and MS, however, benefit from having an easy to develop on OS… so they have incentive to not cripple others as a whole. If they are found doing so, however, their should be consequences to that. No doubt.

What Else is New


  1. Five Years of António Campinos Coverage in Techrights (We Correctly Predicted His Presidency in March 2016)

    We've warned about António Campinos since March of 2016; well, António Campinos isn't just EPO President right now but he's also an oppressor who demonises the union of the EPO's staff



  2. In 2021 the EPO Works for Parasites Instead of Scientists (and It Cannot Even Hide That Anymore)

    Europe's second-largest institution is working for those who attack instead of create (or those who attack actual creators, with lousy and sketchy patents as ammunition)



  3. Links 1/3/2021: Manjaro ARM 21.02 and First Linux 5.12 RC Released

    Links for the day



  4. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, February 28, 2021

    IRC logs for Sunday, February 28, 2021



  5. On Gangstalking and Victim-Blaming

    Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock



  6. If the Web Can Be Increasingly Replaced (or Complemented) by Gemini and IPFS Etc., Then Large Monopolists Will Try to Dominate Those

    Monopolists and sociopaths won't be clapping and cheering for whatever stands a chance of replacing the Web (or Big Banks); if they ever embrace those replacements, it'll be to dominate and in turn undermine these



  7. Links 28/2/2021: Nitrux 1.3.8 and Kraft 0.96

    Links for the day



  8. Techrights Over 3 Internet Protocols and From the Command Line, Using Either Curl/Wget/Text Editor (Over WWW) or IPFS or Gemini

    A quick demo of how Techrights can be accessed without a browser, either over gemini:// or over http://



  9. The Command Line for Weather and Football Scores, Among Other Stuff

    A lot of stuff can be done from the command line and productivity (not to mention privacy) enhanced by automation and scripting over the Web (or even Gemini, as we shall show in a future video)



  10. You Know Gemini Space is Getting a Lot Bigger When You Need to Implement DDOS Protection

    Techrights is currently working on tools or programs that help detect and respond to DDOS attacks (or abusive over-consumption of pages) over gemini://



  11. The Fall of The Register

    A word of caution about The Register, a British publisher that nowadays does a lot of reputation laundering for Microsoft and Bill Gates (instead of news about actual technology, as opposed to clown computing, big brands, and oligarchs)



  12. IRC Proceedings: Saturday, February 27, 2021

    IRC logs for Saturday, February 27, 2021



  13. Links 27/2/2021: IPFS 0.8, OnionShare 2.3.1, and New Stuff in KDE

    Links for the day



  14. The Internet After Social Control Media (and Maybe After the World Wide Web Too)

    There seems to be a growing trend of protests and backlash against centralised Internet disservices; there's also growing dissatisfaction over bloat and spyware, which the Web rendered a 'norm'



  15. SCO's Darl McBride is Finished (Bankruptcy)

    Some news about the site and about the long-forgotten SCO, whose infamous old (and sacked) Darl McBride (responsible for decade-long attacks on Linux) loses everything, based on fresh legal documents



  16. IRC Proceedings: Friday, February 26, 2021

    IRC logs for Friday, February 26, 2021



  17. Links 26/2/2021: Wine 6.3, Genode OS Framework 21.02

    Links for the day



  18. Links 26/2/2021: GNU Poke 1.0 is Out and Rocky Linux Leaves Microsoft GitHub

    Links for the day



  19. Microsoft's Status in Web Servers is So Bad That It Has Fallen Off Charts, is Now Partly Delisted

    In several categories or criteria Microsoft is no longer even listed by Netcraft; the share has become rather minuscule during the pandemic, which convinced more companies to explore expense-cutting moves



  20. We Take Away Your Freedom for Your Own Safety...

    People are herded like cattle and protest/dissent will be demonised as part of the new norm; what will be the cost of the pandemic and will resistance to the status quo ever be permitted to resume?



  21. EPO President Pushes Illegal Software Patents in South America (Over the Telephone With a Misleading New Puff Piece)

    The EPO's "news" section has become worse than a form of distraction (from the EPO's internal rot); it celebrates illegal and unlawful practices, spreading them to other continents



  22. The Free Software Foundation Warns Against Using Twitter

    Richard Stallman said Twitter was OK because it was possible to use it without proprietary software; that's no longer the case, so the Free Software Foundation (FSF) speaks out against it. It speaks about it more than 3 months after the problem became a known one and also an irreversible one (maybe Twitter would have reversed the decision if the media or the FSF actually spoke about it early enough).



  23. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, February 25, 2021

    IRC logs for Thursday, February 25, 2021



  24. Stéphane Bortzmeyer Explains Gemini Protocol (February 2021)

    A recent talk from Stéphane Bortzmeyer about Gemini and what it is for (or why)



  25. Links 26/2/2021: Istio 1.7.8 Announced, Blender 2.92, Firebird 3.0 Language Reference, FSF Against Twitter

    Links for the day



  26. Special Thanks to Mogz

    Credit where it's due to Mogz



  27. Modifying WordPress to Include Gemini Links in All Articles (Assuming a Canonical URL Form)

    In order to promote the departure from the World Wide Web (where possible and suitable; sites with text don't typically need Web-like features) one can promote the analogous pages in one's Gemini capsule; we suggest a way of doing so in WordPress (the most widely used CMS)



  28. Links 25/2/2021: RHEL for Open-Source Infrastructure, GNOME 40 Beta, LXPanel 0.10.1

    Links for the day



  29. IBM and Qt Don't Understand Free Software and They Now Impose Terms and Conditions on Who Qualifies for Use of Free Software Free of Charge

    IBM and Qt Don't Understand Free Software and They Now Impose Terms and Conditions on Who Qualifies for Use of Free Software Free of Charge



  30. Techrights Gemini Capsule, Now With Over 35,000 Pages and Files

    Blog posts combined with static (plain text) files are now 36,000+ in number, just for Gemini protocol alone; that number keeps growing as our conversion proceeds and evolves (our software will be released under terms of the AGPLv3)


RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

Recent Posts