Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Linux Foundation Releases Document On UEFI Secure Boot

Soulskill posted about 3 years ago | from the keep-it-fair dept.

Linux 318

mvar writes "The Linux Foundation today released technical guidance to PC makers on how to implement secure UEFI without locking Linux or other free software off of new Windows 8 machines. The guidance included a subtle tisk-tisk at Microsoft's Steven Sinofsky for suggesting that PC owners won't want to mess with control of their hardware and would happily concede it to operating system makers and hardware manufacturers." Canonical and Red Hat have also published a white paper (PDF) suggesting that all OEMs "allow secure boot to be easily disabled and enabled through a firmware configuration interface," among other things.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37869580)

First.

Re:First. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37869792)

You just showed how it's possible to come in first and still lose. Is your penis feeling any bigger yet?

Re:First. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37870598)

That depends. What are you wearing?

Let me guess (4, Interesting)

0123456 (636235) | about 3 years ago | (#37869596)

As I look into my crystal skull through the mists of time I see Microsoft release a white paper saying that OEMs will get $10 off the cost of Windows if they don't allow users to turn off 'Windows boot'?

Antitrust but verify (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#37869638)

I see Microsoft release a white paper saying that OEMs will get $10 off the cost of Windows if they don't allow users to turn off 'Windows boot'

Then I see US v. Microsoft II.

Re:Antitrust but verify (3, Interesting)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 3 years ago | (#37869784)

the US does not bite the hand that feeds it.

corporations feed the US. people don't matter anymore.

there are only going to be lawsuits in your dreams, my friend. big business is 'too big to fail' - no matter how large they actually are.

the OWS guys are complaining about this very kind of thing, in fact. but it won't change. the system is already in the hands of the 1% and that's that until the next bloody revolution comes.

Re:Antitrust but verify (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#37870154)

Red Hat and Google are corporations too, as is Free Software Foundation.

Re:Antitrust but verify (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | about 3 years ago | (#37870348)

I believe that should be rephrased to "Justice is provided to the highest bidder" FSF and Redhat are both corporations, but unless their pockets are deep enough and ethics low enough to pay equal contributions. Their odds of success are low.

Re:Antitrust but verify (1)

Forbman (794277) | about 3 years ago | (#37870394)

That may be, but not even all the pigs in the barnyard are equal. The big corps that the OWS people are worried about are the proverbial 700 lb boars and sows that rule the feed trough and shit wherever they damn well please.

Re:Antitrust but verify (1)

ddxexex (1664191) | about 3 years ago | (#37870546)

The one I'd be worrying about would be IBM.
Google just recently got their so-so patents; Red hat might have patents, but I don't think its enough to scare Microsoft too much. But IBM is quite pro-linux and probably have a patent portfolio large enough to engage in thermonuclear patent warfare with MS if they really wanted to.

Re:Antitrust but verify (1)

cavreader (1903280) | about 3 years ago | (#37870722)

I seem to recall MS faced a few lawsuits from the Federal government a few years back that resulted in them paying some substantial financial penalties and agree to operation changes monitored my the court. Corporations deserve the spotlight to highlight and address their questionable practices. There are several really important changes I would like to see in regards to the corporate use of offshore tax havens and I think some corporations based in the US should be required to employee a certain percentage of US citizens before they offshore their labor force. I don't propose they should be prevented from using offshore labor but there should be some limits set if they would like to keep all the goodies the US provides to corporations in the form off tax breaks.

Re:Antitrust but verify (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 3 years ago | (#37869820)

I imagine it'll go like the last one. Microsoft will be fined tens of millions of dollars... after making billions.

Re:Antitrust but verify (1)

SharkLaser (2495316) | about 3 years ago | (#37870156)

Ah yes, lets ignore the fact that rootkits have become a problem and Microsoft wants to secure computers running Windows. No, it is obviously a plan to destroy competing operating systems like Linux. Then we can go on to another article and bash Microsoft for not securing their OS. Because that makes total sense!

Seriously. Even Red Hat and other Linux vendors sound like reasonable here, working to make it compatible. Slashdot comments about MS seem like ones made by lunatics and conspiracy theorists.

Re:Antitrust but verify (2)

sjames (1099) | about 3 years ago | (#37870284)

Because Microsoft like totally couldn't have suggested a more acceptable approach like requiring that the root key be given to the owner of the PC.

Re:Antitrust but verify (2)

Bucky24 (1943328) | about 3 years ago | (#37870460)

Well in a way this makes sense. Imagine the people who respond to spam emails and get viruses anyway despite all the protection. If they had the master key, any rootkit could just ask "Please enter your BIOS root key. This is required in order to run this software for some made up reason". And a lot of people would do it. You and I certainly wouldn't, we'd know what it meant. But grandma down the street who already ignores the UAC when installing something she got off the internet wouldn't know the difference. Personally I think that we should be able to GET the root key if we really want it, but it shouldn't come with the machine. That way you have to know what it is in order to get ahold of it. But that assumes customer service at the manufactures (or Microsoft) is actually up to par.

Re:Antitrust but verify (2)

0123456 (636235) | about 3 years ago | (#37870746)

Ah yes, lets ignore the fact that rootkits have become a problem and Microsoft wants to secure computers running Windows. No, it is obviously a plan to destroy competing operating systems like Linux.

You're right. Microsoft would never set out to lock down the PC platform so it could only run Windows. Why the very idea!

Re:Antitrust but verify (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about 3 years ago | (#37869984)

Not going to happen. Microsoft lobbies heavily [commondreams.org] now.

Microsoft didn't always seek support in Washington. For years, the software giant prided itself on steering clear of national politics and lobbying. But when their legal troubles started, that attitude quickly changed.

"Microsoft, before their anti-trust case, had almost no presence in Washington," Arizona Sen. John McCain told The Chronicle editorial board earlier this year. "Now, I almost don't know a lobbyist who's not on their payroll."

That was in 2001. After a decade of increasing corporate influence in Washington I doubt we'll ever see antitrust action against Microsoft again.

Re:Let me guess (1)

Anon-Admin (443764) | about 3 years ago | (#37869678)

$10??? Try a 50% discount. Need to lock them in early then they are always on windows. This would be a major plus for Microsoft, Guaranteeing there market share.

Re:Let me guess (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37870388)

where?

Re:Let me guess (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about 3 years ago | (#37869998)

That would break Win7 and WinPE boot discs.

Re:Let me guess (1)

robmv (855035) | about 3 years ago | (#37870122)

Consumer devices do not use WinPE disk and many consumer devices manufacturers do not care if you can't go back to a previous Windows version, they will say: "Unsupported", better yet for them if they find a way to lock you and disable upgrade to Windows 9

Re:Let me guess (1)

brainzach (2032950) | about 3 years ago | (#37870622)

Windows will lose money if they give $10 discounts for OEMs to lock out other OS's.

Windows is so successful that Microsoft doesn't need to lock out the competitors. You really think Microsoft fears Linux with its 2% of the desktop market share? Not worth the loss in revenue.

I'd say that's "mostly" true. (1, Insightful)

Petersko (564140) | about 3 years ago | (#37869622)

"...PC owners won't want to mess with control of their hardware and would happily concede that to operating system makers and hardware manufacturers."

Put the word "most" in front of that and I'm on board. The PC as appliance that just works is really is what "most" PC owners want.

Re:I'd say that's "mostly" true. (0, Troll)

0123456 (636235) | about 3 years ago | (#37869630)

The PC as appliance that just works is really is what "most" PC owners want.

So why do they run Windows?

Re:I'd say that's "mostly" true. (2)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#37869666)

Because people want certain must-have applications [slashdot.org] more than they want an appliance. "Secure boot" is advertised as capable of giving them both.

Re:I'd say that's "mostly" true. (0, Flamebait)

jedidiah (1196) | about 3 years ago | (#37869750)

No one believes that propaganda except for pro-Windows platform partisans (Lemmings).

"Normal users" don't even know what's being sold to them. They may or may not even buy into the propaganda based on their own firsthand experiences with Microsoft products.

Re:I'd say that's "mostly" true. (2)

Code Yanker (2359188) | about 3 years ago | (#37870014)

If that were true, these multinational tech giants wouldn't have such valuable brands. As it stands now slapping the MSFT logo on something adds perceived value and credibility to it. Like it or not, people think locked-down platforms are great! http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/28/apple-google-microsoft-ibm-nike-disney-bmw-forbes-cmo-network-most-valuable-brands.html [forbes.com]

Re:I'd say that's "mostly" true. (3, Insightful)

oakgrove (845019) | about 3 years ago | (#37870296)

As it stands now slapping the MSFT logo on something adds perceived value and credibility

I find that hard to believe. A Dell is going to sell whether it has a Windows logo on it or not. Same with Lenovo, HP, Acer, etc. I don't think that sticker is really that valuable as people expect windows on it and would be shocked if it didn't come with it. What do they need to see a sticker for?

Re:I'd say that's "mostly" true. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37870606)

Wrong. Box shifters get discounts from MS on the OS when they put the MS sticker on the hardware.

However, that's not "just works" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37869938)

An appliance that "just works" running windows doesn't "just work". It needs mollycoddling, handholding and effort to keep. An appliance that can run a "must-have application" says nothing about the ease of running the appliance, just about the capability of running that application. And since that application is a MUST HAVE, then they'll accept an appliance that "just doesn't work" that will run it because an appliance that just works but can't do the job is not an option.

And since the OP stated that "an appliance that just works" is what most PC users want, your case cannot be what most PC users want.

PS how many people watch netflix? It's not even available in the EU, never mind the world. MOST people can't access netflix. How many users need 16 bit CMYK press print in their camera snaps (especially since most camera users will use the 8bit RGB Jpeg format)? None. Who HAS to create flash apps? Nobody. TurboTax doesn't do the tax returns for 99% of the world's taxpayers. I've NEVER heard of Stone Edge. Sonic 3 is run by, oh, nobody. I've never seen a single person playing sonic 3, though I've seen a few games of Sonic on the SNES played (and the SNES doesn't run windows). Diablo II is niche. Compare sales of D2 with sales of Windows XP. Starcraft: even moreso. StreetFighter IV, ditto. CoD, ditto again. And, given that modern games like CoD require such draconian DRM that isn't designed to cooperate with other programs and isn't checked against coexistence with other DRM mechanisms, they reduce the ability to have a platform that "Just works".

As to that message's requirement for a free equivalent:

Netflix: DVD
Photoshop: GIMP
CS3: CS2 on Wine
TurboTax: Online banking , GNUCash, etc
StoneEdge: SCO's POS suite
All your Games: Games on Linux

Re:However, that's not "just works" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37870244)

though I've seen a few games of Sonic on the SNES played

What?

Re:However, that's not "just works" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37870294)

"PS how many people watch netflix?"

Given that it's the most popular movie streaming service in the world, I'd say quite a few. Also, from CNN, Netflix is responsible for over 30% of the ENTIRE INTERNET traffic of the entire world. 60% of the traffic is "real time entertainment", and netflix ALONE is half of that 60%. That's looking at traffic for 80 countries.

"Sandvine Intelligent Broadband Networks' report analyzed 200 Internet service providers in 80 countries and found that real-time entertainment apps take up 60% of peak downstream traffic, up from 50% last year. Netflix has more than half of that share. Like others, Sandvine has also noticed a shift away from PCs to access such content."

Re:However, that's not "just works" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37870516)

We're all assuming porn is the other half of "real time entertainment", right?

This is a sample, not an exhaustive list (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#37870444)

My list was intended to be a representative sample, not an exhaustive list.

PS how many people watch netflix? It's not even available in the EU

First: The United States is relevant because the Linux Foundation, mentioned in the article, is headquartered in the United States. Second: Yet [technorati.com] . Third: By "Netflix" I meant "Netflix and foreign counterparts", and LoveFilm operates in several countries where Netflix does not.

How many users need 16 bit CMYK press print in their camera snaps (especially since most camera users will use the 8bit RGB Jpeg format)? None.

Professionals do.

Who HAS to create flash apps? Nobody.

What's the alternative to Flash for creating a vector animation?

TurboTax doesn't do the tax returns for 99% of the world's taxpayers.

First: The United States is relevant because the Linux Foundation, mentioned in the article, is headquartered in the United States. Second: By "TurboTax" I meant "software like TurboTax, such as its closest competitor H&R Block At Home, or foreign counterparts".

I've NEVER heard of Stone Edge.

Neither did I until I ended up at my last job. Just because you don't know anybody who runs a particular package doesn't mean nobody runs it.

Sonic 3 is run by, oh, nobody.

Then what well-known platform game is played by a lot of people? I bet a lot more people play Sonic 3 than SuperTux.

Diablo II is niche.

All individual video games are niche, just as all individual books are niche. But again, this is a sample, not an exhaustive list. The odds are greater that you'll find a game you like if you start with Windows than if you start with desktop Linux, especially when online multiplayer requires all players to have the same title.

Netflix: DVD

DVD watching software does not come with Linux because of U.S. patents and U.S. anticircumvention restrictions. VLC is technically illegal in the United States. The United States is relevant because the Linux Foundation, mentioned in the article, is headquartered in the United States.

Photoshop: GIMP

GIMP does not have 100 percent of the features of Photoshop. Professionals who rely on those features cannot rely on GIMP.

TurboTax: Online banking , GNUCash, etc

Those are counterparts to Quicken, not TurboTax. TurboTax has specific programming for a country's most recent income tax laws and for those of its political subdivisions.

StoneEdge: SCO's POS suite

Don't you remember the SCO $699 scam? That was a P.O.S.

All your Games: Games on Linux

Which popular video games, other than first-person shooters rated M for Mature (or foreign counterparts), are ported to Linux?

Re:I'd say that's "mostly" true. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37869688)

because they love to suffer from endless pain.

Re:I'd say that's "mostly" true. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37869724)

Because for most people, Windows does just work. (Hate to burst your bubble.) I know where you're coming from, but for a lot of people, Linux just doesn't work. It's a lot better than it used to be, but if that Wifi adapter isn't recognized, they have no idea where to go from there.

Re:I'd say that's "mostly" true. (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 3 years ago | (#37869836)

Most users have no idea what a wifi adaptor is. They just buy the PC from one OEM or another, and are happy to find it works out the box. They'd be very happy that they don't have to worry about drivers, if they knew what drivers were.

Re:I'd say that's "mostly" true. (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | about 3 years ago | (#37870496)

Most users generally don't have to worry about drivers even if they are on windows. Windows 7 supported my plug-in wireless adapter right out of the box. And even for other things, generally they come with a software CD that you just pop in, run the installer, and everything works.

Re:I'd say that's "mostly" true. (5, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | about 3 years ago | (#37869864)

Most users would be just as stuck if faced with a windows install which failed to recognise their wifi adapter...
Stock out of the box windows often fails to recognise hardware, xp was especially bad because it got so dated but 7 is going that way too now...

Users don't install their computers, they buy them preinstalled... There's no reason why a machine preinstalled with linux wouldn't have everything already configured and working, and come with a recovery disc to return it to the factory state... Same as currently happens with windows.

Re:I'd say that's "mostly" true. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37870130)

"Most users would be just as stuck if faced with a windows install which failed to recognise their wifi adapte"

Windows compatible adapters come with driver/installation disks.

Re:I'd say that's "mostly" true. (2, Insightful)

neokushan (932374) | about 3 years ago | (#37870282)

I've installed windows countless times, I'm a software developer, I build computers, I have made custom (legal) windows installation disks that have drivers and updates slip streamed on them. I've hex edited DVD ROM firmware updates, rooted plenty of Android devices. I'm also pretty good with regular expressions and can use vim in a pinch. Suffice to say, I'm pretty technically inclined and when Linux doesn't recognise my wireless adapter out of the box, I haven't a fucking clue what to do, either.

Re:I'd say that's "mostly" true. (3, Insightful)

therealslartybardfas (2495594) | about 3 years ago | (#37870462)

I created an account just to say this. You weren't born with the ability to create windows installation disks that have been slip streamed and other drivers on it. You took the time to learn how to do this. The fact that you didn't take the time to learn how linux wireless adapters work isn't a fault of Linux.

Re:I'd say that's "mostly" true. (1)

webheaded (997188) | about 3 years ago | (#37870304)

Yeah, I think that if you really sit down and think about it...we all started with Windows (or at least a hell of a lot of us) or are at least absurdly familiar with it to the point that we don't need help with that stuff at all. I don't google for how to make wifi work in Windows...I know what I need. Windows is so common that even some of the normies can figure out some of this stuff because of the vast array of information that even a simpleton can follow out there on the internet. We don't think of it as hard to understand because we are SO used to it. Linux is somewhat more complicated sometimes but the fact remains that either of these things could be done with a little effort and it in either case, a full install of the OS for either would scare the shit out of any normal user if everything did not automatically install itself.

Re:I'd say that's "mostly" true. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37869968)

And even though Macs have a reputation for "just working" they don't always either. I have a Mac Mini running Lion as a test box. The system is barely touched, I only use it for testing web development and various other things.

It took me several attempts to get it to join our Active Directory (it eventually did "just work" but it failed on the first few attempts with a cryptic error).

I turned on screen sharing which is supposed to work with VNC, so I could control it from my regular workstation across the room. The official Linux VNC client (both free and enterprise versions) give a protocol error, then connected and just dropped immediately. Third-party VNC clients were similar. It just plain doesn't work no matter what I tried.

Then I tried to setup my Exchange account using the default mail app. I entered the connection info and Mail just disappeared and I got a "The application "Mail" has unexpectedly quit..." message. Tried multiple times with the same result.

I'm certainly not bashing on Macs here, I do think the OS is great and Apple has done very well. But the above is my true experience with a stock straight out of the box Mini running the latest OS. I just work around any issues the same as I do in Linux and Windows.

Users don't want a "toy OS" like Linux (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37869742)

See here as to how often it gets used on the desktop -> http://www.netmarketshare.com/ [netmarketshare.com]

Specifically this:

Desktop Operating System Share
Windows 92.4%
Mac 6.5%
Linux 1.1%
SunOS 0.0%

"Argue with the numbers Penguins" & the resulting torrent of "Pro-*NIX shills" will come rumbling out of the network in reply to the facts shown above, will be utterly hilarious!

(Complete with their numerous AC illogical off topic adhominem attack posts and their numerous alternate registered "luser" accounts they keep here as well, lol).

Question: Do Penguins have feathers? Well, let's wait & see as they come roaring in with them all "ruffled" in reply, and yet they're helpless vs. the facts above, lol!

Re:Users don't want a "toy OS" like Linux (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 3 years ago | (#37869818)

Note that I didn't say anything about Linux in my post.

Every non-tech user I know who wants a PC that 'just works' bought a Mac.

Why do nearly 93% of users use Windows then? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37870206)

See subject line above & the original post you replied to's stats -> http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2498664&cid=37869742 [slashdot.org]

This may also interest you as well, on the note of unpatched security vulnerabilities in Linux's KERNEL ALONE, not the entirety of what comes in a Linux distro either mind you, let alone say, the LAMP stack too which compounds that even further & worse for Linux/"Open SORES" (4x++ those of nearly ALL of what Microsoft gives you to do business & development with no less) -> http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2498664&cid=37870070 [slashdot.org]

Re:Users don't want a "toy OS" like Linux (2)

faedle (114018) | about 3 years ago | (#37869838)

Given the ratio of "professional users" to "toy users" of any technology (from cars to hammers), I'd say that the 7.6% figure is about right. The professional users don't want a toy OS like Windows.

Unpatched security vulnerabilities anyone? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37870070)

Linux, in its KERNEL ONLY mind you, has 4x++ the unpatched security vulnerabilities Windows 7/Server 2008 have, AND UNPATCHED REMOTE ONES no less in Linux also (which Windows is also a complete "distro" with all of its parts, not just a kernel only - add on the other parts of Linux that come in a distro, you will get more)!

In fact, Linux's kernel ALONE has 4x the # of unpatched bugs the ENTIRE SUITE/ARRAY OF WHAT MICROSOFT GIVES YOU TO DO BUSINESS & DEVELOPMENT WITH!

This data's ALL from a respected source (secunia.com) for known security vulnerabilities unpatched:

---

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Windows 7: (11/27/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/27467/?task=advisories [secunia.com]

Unpatched 6% (5 of 85 Secunia advisories)

OR

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Windows Server 2008: (11/27/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/18255/?task=advisories [secunia.com]

Unpatched 3% (4 of 153 Secunia advisories)

* Nicest part here is, that the few unpatched vulns ALL have valid easy work arounds, or don't apply to workstations, or can be secured for (by turning off services you don't need, especially on desktops/workstations or by securing them down rights-wise)... can Linux say the same?

Doubt it!

PLUS, what REALLY causes malware outbreaks in Windows?? JAVA, & Adobe Products MOSTLY (99.8% in fact), per this:

http://net-security.org/malware_news.php?id=1863 [net-security.org]

& this:

http://www.net-security.org/secworld.php?id=11759 [net-security.org]

---

FACT - THAT'S 4x++ LESS UNPATCHED SECURITY VULNERABILITIES ON MS NEAR ENTIRE ARRAY OF WHAT THEY GIVE YOU FOR BUSINESS & DEVELOPMENT - see my p.s. below in fact on that note

(& I know that LAMP can't say the same & tosses on even MORE errors into the mix for Linux)

, THAN IS PRESENT ON THE LINUX 2.6x KERNEL ALONE!

NOW- Toss on the rest of what goes into a Linux distro OR the "LAMP" stack, also (Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP)?

?

That # goes "up, Up, UP & AWAY...", bigime & even moreso, "increasing that lead, that Linux has", lol, in more unpatched known security bugs present that is (a dubious honor/win, lol, to say the least).

So, that "all said & aside"?

Compare a "*NIX/Open SORES" OS in Linux's "latest/greatest"?:

---

Vulnerability Report: Linux Kernel 2.6.x (11/27/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/2719/?task=advisories [secunia.com]

Unpatched 6% (18 of 281 Secunia advisories)

---

AND YES, there are 3 remotely vulnerable unpatched security problem outstanding in Linux there too, unpatched (despite all the "Open 'SORES' eyes" out there to fix it (yea, "right", not!))

* Additionally/again - so it "sinks in":

That's also more than the ENTIRE GAMUT of what MS gives folks to do business & build tools for it as well has & LAMP certainly cannot show less errors in unpatched security vulnerablities than 5 total from MS...

In fact? LAMP is the favored attack for phishers & spammers:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/10/domains_lamped/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

PERTINENT QUOTE:

"Phishers compromise LAMP-based websites for days at a time and hit the same victims over and over again, according to an Anti-Phishing Working Group survey.

Sites built on Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP are the favoured targets of phishing attackers,"

---

Vulnerability Report: MySQL 5.x (11/27/2011):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/8355/ [secunia.com]

Unpatched 4% (1 of 26 Secunia advisories)

* "GOSH" - Looks like MORE THAN SQLServer 2008 with ZERO unpatched, eh?

In fact...100% more of a lead (in bugs unpatched, lol) Yea... bigtime - Some "dubious honor" that... lol! "Big WIN" (not!).

---

Vulnerability Report: Apache 2.2.x (11/27/2011):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/9633/ [secunia.com]

Unpatched 8% (2 of 25 Secunia advisories)

Ah, what have we HERE now, vs. IIS 7 (again, with ZERO unpatched security vulnerabilities)?

Ah yes... yet again the "LAMP CAMP" shows its "True Colors", 200% more unpatched bugs, & with MORE UNPATCHED SECURITY BUGS! Yet another "Win" (not), eh??

---

Vulnerability Report: PHP 5.3.x (11/27/2011):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/27504/ [secunia.com]

Unpatched 8% (1 of 13 Secunia advisories)

WHAT'S THIS? YET ANOTHER "LEAD" (lol, in unpatched security bugs) for the "LAMP CAMP"??

Another "100% lead" (loss is more like it) no less, vs. MS Visual Studio 2010 or Office 2010 (& their attendant XML, browsers in IE9 even, & MORE - per my earlier posts!)

The RESULTS (very recent mind you) of these unpatched vulnerabilities in "Open SORES/*NIX ware?"

---

KERNEL.ORG COMPROMISED:

http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/08/31/2321232/Kernelorg-Compromised [slashdot.org]

---

Linux.com pwned in fresh round of cyber break-ins:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/12/more_linux_sites_down/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Breaching Fort Apache.org - What went wrong?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/03/apache_website_breach_postmortem/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Mysql.com Hacked, Made To Serve Malware:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/09/26/2218238/mysqlcom-hacked-made-to-serve-malware [slashdot.org]

---

COMPARE & CONTRAST WINDOWS RUNNING IN A HIGH-TPM ENVIRONS SERVER-WISE NOW:

Windows also has been running 24x7 since 2005 for NASDAQ, acting as its "OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM, non-stop, via Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 in fail-over clustering on the server-front too!

NASDAQ Migrates to SQL Server 2005:

http://www.windowsfs.com/enews/nasdaq-migrates-to-sql-server-2005 [windowsfs.com]

and here:

NASDAQ Uses SQL Server 2005 - Reducing Costs through Better Data Management:

http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/09/17/sqlauthority-news-nasdaq-uses-sql-server-2005-reducing-costs-through-better-data-management/ [sqlauthority.com]

(For proof thereof... for coming up on a DECADE OF SOLID UPTIME uninterrupted & "bulletproof + bugfree", @ NASDAQ too, a high-tpm environs, not just a mail or webserver!)

AND, AGAIN - Do NOTE that SQLServer, IIS7, Windows Server 2008, & Visual Studio 2010 have less security bugs unpatched, BY FAR, than does the "LAMP" stack... period!

---

You like Apples? HOW DO YOU LIKE THOSE APPLES (compared, apples to apples no less), & the stats above for Linux, kernel only? Well, again - it's also NOT the entire 'gamut/array' of what actually comes in a Linux distro as well!

(E.G.-> Such as the attendant GUI, Windows managers, browsers, etc. that ship in distros too that have bugs, and yes, THEY DO)

THAT ADDS EVEN MORE BUGS that COMPOUNDS THAT # EVEN MORE, and worse, for LINUX!!!

So, so much for "Windows is less secure than Linux" stuff you see around here on /., eh?

(It gets even WORSE for 'Linuxdom' when you toss on ANDROID (yes, it's a LINUX variant too), because it's being shredded on the security-front lately, unfortunately)

BOTTOM-LINE:

What this all comes down to, is all the "Pro-*NIX propoganda straight outta pravda" practically doesn't stand up very well against concrete, verifiable & visible facts now, does it? Nope! NOT IN TERMS OF MARKET SHARE, NOR SECURITY EITHER, lol!

...

APK

P.S.=> A little "salt" on the cuts from above for you Linux Penguins too, in showing the unpatched security vulnerabilities track-record for nearly ALL of the rest of what MS gives folks to do business & development with also:

---

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft SQL Server 2008: (11/27/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/21744/ [secunia.com]

Unpatched 0% (0 of 1 Secunia advisories)

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS) 7.x: (11/27/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/17543/ [secunia.com]

Unpatched 0% (0 of 6 Secunia advisories)

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Exchange Server 2010: (11/27/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/28234/ [secunia.com]

Unpatched 0% (0 of 0 Secunia advisories)

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft SharePoint Server 2010: (11/27/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/29809/ [secunia.com]

Unpatched 0% (0 of 3 Secunia advisories)

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Forefront Endpoint Protection 2010: (11/27/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/34343/ [secunia.com]

Unpatched 0% (0 of 1 Secunia advisories)

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer 2.x: (11/27/2011):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/6436/ [secunia.com]

Unpatched 0% (0 of 0 Secunia advisories)

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Office 2010: (11/27/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/30529/?task=advisories [secunia.com]

Unpatched 0% (0 of 9 Secunia advisories)

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Project 2010: (11/27/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/31177/ [secunia.com]

Unpatched 0% (0 of 0 Secunia advisories)

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Windows Services for UNIX 3.x: (11/27/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/5244/ [secunia.com]

Unpatched 0% (0 of 3 Secunia advisories)

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Internet Explorer 9.x: (11/27/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/34591/ [secunia.com]

Unpatched 0% (0 of 4 Secunia advisories)

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Virtual PC 2007: (11/27/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/14315/ [secunia.com]

Unpatched 0% (0 of 1 Secunia advisories)

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Visual Studio 2010: (11/27/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/30853/?task=advisories [secunia.com]

Unpatched 0% (0 of 2 Secunia advisories)

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft DirectX 10.x:
(08/02/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/16896/ [secunia.com]

Unpatched 0% (0 of 3 Secunia advisories)

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft .NET Framework 4.x
(08/02/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/29592/ [secunia.com]

Unpatched 0% (0 of 8 Secunia advisories)

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Silverlight 4.x: (11/27/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/28947/ [secunia.com]

Unpatched 0% (0 of 1 Secunia advisories)

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft XML Core Services (MSXML) 6.x: (11/27/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/6473/ [secunia.com]

Unpatched 0% (0 of 4 Secunia advisories)

---

"Read 'em & weep", Penguins... facts, are facts, just like the facts posted on market share by users OS usage earlier -> http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2498664&cid=37869742 [slashdot.org] !

... apk

Re:Unpatched security vulnerabilities anyone? (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about 3 years ago | (#37870342)

APK unpatched psychological disturbances: over 9000!

Illogical off topic adhominem attacks? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37870532)

Please: Is THAT the "best you've got"?? Apparently so, vs. facts I posted here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2498664&cid=37870070 [slashdot.org]

* Ah, yes... you KNOW I've just GOTTA say it: This? This was just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2EZ'"

(Facts & truths are like that... lol, reducing naysayers to off topic illogical adhominem attacks in effete retaliation...)

APK

P.S.=>

"APK unpatched psychological disturbances: over 9000!" - by oakgrove (845019) on Friday October 28, @12:41PM (#37870342)

Do you have your:

1.) PhD in the Psychiatric sciences?

2.) A license to practice psychiatry??

3.) A formal examination of myself done in a formal professional psychiatric environs to determine my alleged mental/psychological state & for your "SiDeWaLk-ShRiNk" snap/insta 'diagnosis-prognosis'???

No, to ALL OF THE ABOVE? Of course - then, you're reduced to libel, adhominem attacks, & other illogical trollish "measures" (all ineffective vs. facts).

Yes - You're clearly just another libeling off topic illogical troll that has been defeated by facts, and your off topic illogical adhominem attack libelous reply only illustrates that clearly to anyone reading, for me... "too easy"!

... apk

Re:Users don't want a "toy OS" like Linux (1)

justforgetme (1814588) | about 3 years ago | (#37869988)

That is the site that says iDevices overpower Android devices 4 to 1, right?
Well then all their other statistics must be right as well!

Tell us about ANDROID "security", lol! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37870410)

See subject-line: Now, shall I post more facts/stats/reports on that note also (ANDROID IS A LINUX mind you)?

Seems that folks don't want a "TOY OS" with poor security & unpatched security vulnerabilities by the truckload in its KERNEL ALONE, not even an entire OS distro (which IS what Windows is)...

(I.E.-> Linux's kernel ALONE has 4x++ the # of unpatched security vulnerabilities, including REMOTE ONES, that Windows, an entire "distro", has - heck, Linux's kernel ALONE has more than nearly the entirety of what MS gives folks to do business & development with!)

In fact, for your reference, see here on that very note -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2498664&cid=37870070 [slashdot.org] )

APK

P.S.=> Again/Once more, in closing/bottom-line: "READ 'EM & WEEP, Penguins", facts ARE facts... period!

... apk

Re:I'd say that's "mostly" true. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37870268)

So why do they run Windows?

Truthfully, the majority of PC owners run Windows because without looking closely at other OSs or really being interested, Windows is the obvious defacto standard OS. It is the most used and most well known so for business or practical use Windows is the first one that pops into mind. Truth be told, most of the time these people are just getting pre-built computers with windows hot and ready.

Re:I'd say that's "mostly" true. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37869800)

I bought a personal computer, not a personal appliance.

Re:I'd say that's "mostly" true. (2)

justforgetme (1814588) | about 3 years ago | (#37870052)

unfortunately geeks like the avg /. visitor are a dying breed vastly outnumbered by the hordes of the - now hip - undead, media mass consumers.

so what happens when the app store does not have (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 3 years ago | (#37869904)

The game / app you want and secure boot can't be turned off on your dell?

Say you want to play Leisure Suit Larry 2012 but sorry windows app store does not have adult games.

So you try to install a steam game and a box comes saying that Steam Client Service does not work with Secure boot.

Re:so what happens when the app store does not hav (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 3 years ago | (#37869922)

The game / app you want and secure boot can't be turned off on your dell?

You bend over and pay $1000 for a motherboard with a switch that lets you turn it off. This whole thing is about destroying the open PC architecture and replacing it with vendor lock-in so they can rake in the cash.

Re:so what happens when the app store does not hav (2)

Bucky24 (1943328) | about 3 years ago | (#37870522)

Why on earth wouldn't Steam work with secure boot? Secure boot has to do with the boot up process. Steam is an application that runs AFTER the boot process is complete. Unless you're saying that Microsoft would modify Windows so that no unapproved software could run.

Re:I'd say that's "mostly" true. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37869926)

There's no reason why that won't happen without UEFI lock outs. The consumer will have the same experience, and for those claiming security reason, simple, bring back the read-only jumper.

Re:I'd say that's "mostly" true. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37870174)

Forgot to add, that microsoft position is as all see but denyied by only those who care to support microsoft attempts at securing its market/monopoly position under the false claim of "added security" and "PC users don't care" or "to provide a better experience"(for whom? I doubt the user has as even 1% as much to gain with that as microsoft)

Re:I'd say that's "mostly" true. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37869940)

"Put the word "most" in front of that and I'm on board. "

Exactly. It IS what most people want.

CNN had a story a few weeks ago that desktop PC sales in the US, Canada, and Western Europe are falling now as people move to iPads and other mobile device to replace them. In large part this is driven by people's desire to HAVE locked down hardware where it is perceived as a safer alternative than the crapware infested desktop PC.

This trend is expected to continue. It hasn't reached the developing world yet, where PC sales are still increasing, and that has more than offset the decline in the US/Canada/Europe, but it's only a matter of time there too.

Re:I'd say that's "mostly" true. (1)

future assassin (639396) | about 3 years ago | (#37870036)

>The PC as appliance that just works is really is what "most" PC owners want.

Actually people just want to own what they bought with out being told what it can and cannot be used for by the manufacturer.

Re:I'd say that's "mostly" true. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37870334)

Highly doubtful. That's what I want, maybe it's what you want too, but MOST people? No. They are quite happy buying their locked down devices. Happier, even, because it is seen as safer.

Re:I'd say that's "mostly" true. (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | about 3 years ago | (#37870542)

I think the vast number of people who own iPhones prove you wrong on that point.

Re:I'd say that's "mostly" true. (1)

sjames (1099) | about 3 years ago | (#37870426)

That same MOST, however will want their little brother, nephew, kid next door, etc to be able to fix the machine from time to time. They, in turn, may want to boot a live cd as part of the repair process.

So as I follow it... (4, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 3 years ago | (#37869710)

Intel: We've invented a new technology that can be used to prevent low-level malware from being loaded during the pre-kernel boot process, when conventional antimalware techniques are ineffective. It could also be used by a manufacturer to prevent the user from installing any unapproved OS, as from a technological standpoint this functionality is identical to blocking malware, but that isn't what we designed it for.
Microsoft: Oh, that sounds fun. Ok, all OEMs: If you want to ship with the 'windows 8' logo which everyone is going to want soon, you need to include support for this and it must be enabled by default. You will have to include Windows 8 on the trust list, but anything else you need to block as it may be malware. You can give the user the ability to turn this feature off and install non-Windows OSs if you want, but we don't really care.
Linux supporters: But that means that unless an OEM has explicitly taken the trouble to install a feature that few users will even know of, it'll be impossible for us to use any OS except Windows - most seriously on laptops, where we can't build our own.
Microsoft: Not our problem! Take it up with the OEMs. We're only mandating that they install linux-blocking capability, we're not asking them to actually use it.

Throughout this, the OEMs have remained silent on the issue.

Re:So as I follow it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37869842)

You must not have been paying much attention, but UEFI capable motherboards have been shipping for some time now. I don't hear anyone whining about not being able to run linux on them. This whole thing is such a non-story it boggles the mind.

Re:So as I follow it... (2)

0123456 (636235) | about 3 years ago | (#37869910)

You must not have been paying much attention, but UEFI capable motherboards have been shipping for some time now. I don't hear anyone whining about not being able to run linux on them.

Duh. That's because they don't currently require 'Windows boot' to get a Windows 8 logo on the box.

Re:So as I follow it... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 3 years ago | (#37870092)

"UEFI" doesn't mean just one thing. It is a sprawling specification with a wide variety of possible capabilities(architecturally, it should really be thought of as an entire OS, plus OEM preload apps and drivers, lurking in your motherboard, it's at a pretty similar level of complexity and potential power).

To the best of my knowledge, none of the present UEFI boards implement the feature being discussed.

Re:So as I follow it... (3, Insightful)

Todd Knarr (15451) | about 3 years ago | (#37870246)

I think the big driver for OEMs telling Microsoft to rethink this will be Windows 7 and XP. A lot of major companies won't be ready to deploy Windows 8, especially with money tight. And they'll need to deploy, not stock Windows 7, but the specific image with the specific patches that they've certified compatible with all the other software they need to run. Fail to do that and IT's going to come back with a big requirement to re-certify everything that'll cost a lot of money and take a lot of time, and management'll buy off on it because it'll be phrased as "If we don't verify everything, we're risking another company-wide outage for some unknown number of weeks until the vendors get us a fix. Remember how much pain that caused last time it happened?".

The big vendors like HP and Dell aren't going to go for something that'll cost them their biggest corporate customers. And the motherboard OEMs won't go for something that'll cost them both their big vendor contracts and their boutique component sales to gamers and the like.

Re:So as I follow it... (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | about 3 years ago | (#37870566)

I concur. Especially if Windows 8 is going to require this new hardware, I think a lot of companies will take a very long time to upgrade. A new OS is a lot cheaper to buy (especially if you buy a volume license) than a whole fleet of new desktops.

Watch out! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37869732)

If we don't implement secure boot, the viruses will getcha (like the terrorists and the pedophiles)! We must try to save stupid users from their own stupidity at the cost of freedom.

Re:Watch out! (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | about 3 years ago | (#37870582)

Hasn't that been the motto of the government/corporations for some time now?

OEM can use this to lock in to there video, hdd an (2)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 3 years ago | (#37869796)

OEM can use this to lock in to there video cards that can cost $100+ the price of other on line stores, hdd that cost the full price of a 1TB disk to just upgrade from 500gb to 1TB. Maybe even ram lock in so you can pay $60 to go from 2gb to 4gb. But for about $50 you can get good 8GB ram kits.

Re:OEM can use this to lock in to there video, hdd (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 3 years ago | (#37869900)

They could... or, more realistically, they might just not *bother* to include an option to disable the windows-eight-only lock. After all, somewhere around 1% of their customers are going to want to run non-Microsoft OSs, hardly a thriving market. Scarcely worth the cost of having someone program, test and document another option in the setup program.

Or maybe when Windows Ten comes out, Microsoft will demand that the windows-only-lock will be fixed on... as a security feature, of course, to prevent future supermalware from disabling it.

What about windows 7? (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 3 years ago | (#37870006)

I think lot's of people may not like that new UI and other stuff in windows 7 that is being taken out in windows 8.

Re:OEM can use this to lock in to there video, hdd (1)

brainzach (2032950) | about 3 years ago | (#37870476)

You really think it is that hard to program? There are many features in the bios that less than 1% of the population uses.

Enterprise customers are going to provide enough demand to support that feature. There are also a significant portion of the population who will want to run Linux or another version of Windows to justify the costs. It would be stupid if manufacturers don't support it.

Re:OEM can use this to lock in to there video, hdd (4, Interesting)

adonoman (624929) | about 3 years ago | (#37869966)

OEMs don't need this to lock in hardware, they can do this just fine [wikipedia.org] with regular BIOS. [linuxquestions.org]

Re:OEM can use this to lock in to there video, hdd (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 3 years ago | (#37870390)

It does still have the potential to pretty substantially change the game, though:

Goofy hacks like custom SPD fields and PCI-ID checks are effective enough to spoil the day of Joe User; but most of the implementations in the wild are pitifully weak: SPD data, for instance, are stored on a totally normal little SMBUS eeprom chip. Cloning a vendor-lockout SPD field onto a generic chip of similar capability is not terribly demanding. The proposed cryptographic mechanisms, designed from the ground up for the purpose and given considerably more resources to work with, should be a great deal tougher.

Also, since the objective of this "secure boot" is to establish a 'trusted' chain of execution from power-on to porn browsing, properly rigorous applications will likely require verification by default, rather than having verification be a hacky special case for wifi or RAM. After all, most modern peripherals contain pretty substantial onboard processing power, some amount of onboard flash and firmware, and quite possibly DMA, kernel drivers, or other potentially threatening abilities to make a nuisance of themselves elsewhere in the system...

apple efi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37869848)

not to be a dick, but didn't apple do this first? u can dual boot apple machines, right?

Re:apple efi (1)

Jeng (926980) | about 3 years ago | (#37869942)

Only because it allows it's users to dual boot, but Apple could just as easily lock down the product.

Re:apple efi (1)

msclrhd (1211086) | about 3 years ago | (#37870060)

I don't want to dual boot my machine, or run Linux in a virtualised environment. I want a system where I can run the Linux distribution of my choosing on it without having a Windows install sitting there (including at the boot sequence). I want to tinker with, customise, upgrade, fix, modify and install custom software of my choosing on it.

spoiler (1)

nimbius (983462) | about 3 years ago | (#37869886)

mainstream vendors will completely ignore this. guys like Dell and HP have been testing the technology extensively to make sure it works on their products. it will be proprietary, guarded, and hard to manage, and probably bloated just like every other standard theyve championed.

small players will either choose to ignore the technology entirely, or develop their own convoluted undocumented implementation that manages to lock out anything except what was imaged on the device to begin with. Expect the usual BSD and Linux hackers to rise from the shadows to fix another broken mess of industry detritus.

i expect this to be one more thing i either loathe or disable as a sysadmin. UEFI, welcome to the hallowed esteems of DRAC, BMC, IPMI, ACPI, and APMI.

Re:spoiler (2)

Microlith (54737) | about 3 years ago | (#37869980)

Expect the usual BSD and Linux hackers to rise from the shadows to fix another broken mess of industry detritus.

Just like how they fixed Motorola's secure boot process, right? Oh, wait. Those are still locked and the kernel can't be replaced.

Someone missed the point. (2)

sgt scrub (869860) | about 3 years ago | (#37869898)

I don't want to disable the functionality to use Linux or any other operating system. I want it to be customizable so I can use it with any other operating system. Having it locked down for existing OEM's is what makes it evil.

Re:Someone missed the point. (1)

justforgetme (1814588) | about 3 years ago | (#37870106)

Well, I guess that if you get a device with this functionality (and it isn't locked down to only run win8) you will have the ability to install custom OS signatures to secure your linux boot

Re:Someone missed the point. (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | about 3 years ago | (#37870578)

I believe the fear is, you might have the ability to. So far I haven't heard any manufacturer stand up and say "Don't worry we absolutely will give the ability to control this feature to our customers", and with hardware manufacturers getting more and more power over what they can limit on the hardware they sell (look at intel, they've got password locks to prevent you from using all the cores on a CPU they sell you, so that they can sell you an "upgrade" to unlock the features). I admit this fear isn't by definition justified, but it is possibly justified. There are 2 possible ways it can be done.

1. A setup is enabled in the bios, the user can set what boot loaders to allow

2. A default setup is set, Windows 8 by default is allowed, all other OS's are blocked without a code that the manufacturer does not provide, or perhaps they don't even have an option available.

White list of compatible hardware... (1)

sapgau (413511) | about 3 years ago | (#37869914)

Could we start a white list of compatible hardware manufacturers or a black list of offending hardware (which ever is easier to maintain) so it would help us users that are planning for our next PC build?

Re:White list of compatible hardware... (1)

ifrag (984323) | about 3 years ago | (#37869976)

I really hope the black list is easier to maintain.

enterprise use will drive booting older windows + (2)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 3 years ago | (#37869956)

enterprise use will drive booting older windows + linux but I seeing systems / software needed windows XP being a point that force this to be off on at least some systems.

Windows 7 that most enterprise is now moving to will HAVE TO WORK WITH Secure boot as I don't see windows 8 fitting into enterprise use the way that is now being planed.

Re:enterprise use will drive booting older windows (2)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | about 3 years ago | (#37870302)

UEFI systems without any sort of BIOS compatibility module won't be able to boot 32-bit versions of Windows XP. Of course that doesn't stop anyone from developing one (see efforts to boot Windows on x86 Macs pre-Boot Camp).

Incentive? (0)

qbast (1265706) | about 3 years ago | (#37870038)

And why exactly OEMs would want to bother? For that 1% of Linux users? Yeah, right.

Re:Incentive? (2)

Bobakitoo (1814374) | about 3 years ago | (#37870438)

The 1% of Linux desktop users make the purchase decision for the 91% of supercomputers [wikipedia.org] and 60% of servers on the Internet [wikipedia.org] .

Do not fuck with us.

Re:Incentive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37870652)

No, you'll be fucked with, retard. You don't make any purchasing decisions, your boss does. You're just a stupid pussy with an overinflated ego, holier than thou attitude, and one inch erection.

Re:Incentive? (1)

Forbman (794277) | about 3 years ago | (#37870490)

And yet Website developers will bend over backwards to make their websites work with users still using IE6 (if it's at 1.5% or so).

Would you buy something that said it was crippled? (1)

bussdriver (620565) | about 3 years ago | (#37870664)

Yeah, the consumer will want to buy the one labeled "runs microsoft only" and the other one "runs everything"

Desktops... (1)

Questy (209818) | about 3 years ago | (#37870318)

I think this'll only affect the desktop market. (why I run my desktop OSes - Linux, Windows, OSX - on a Mac instead of a PC). In the server space, though, that's big freaking money, and I think the manufacturers will be extremely reluctant to cause this trouble in that space. One of two things could happen here, I think... this will be enough of a political black eye that MS will give in and suggest allowances for other OSes or there will be pressure coming back from the server side toward desktops that can effect change. In any event, this will be interesting to watch.

Wow (0)

bmo (77928) | about 3 years ago | (#37870332)

The softie shills are out in force on this one.

this guy here...

http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2498664&cid=37870070 [slashdot.org]

Insane. Truly nuts.

"Sure you can trust Microsoft - all doubts are tinfoil"

No, no we can't. Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

--
BMO

"Windows Only" PCs should require a label (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 3 years ago | (#37870358)

Like, "Unleaded Gas Only" just to make it visible to the idiot consumer what he or she is buying. "Runs Anything!" or "Runs Linux!" are optional, of course.

I know, silly idea, but sometimes I feel that this world is rather silly as well. Forcing a machine in hardware to only run Windows, for example.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?