On 10/19/2011 08:01 PM, Phong Nguyen wrote:
On 19 Oct 2011, at 2138, Yasha Karant wrote:
Although this discussion is socio-political, and thus outside the
nominal items on this list, the reality of Microsoft is that of an
entrenched monopolist, of which charge Microsoft has been convicted
in several governments. Microsoft exists for one purpose only:
profiteering. The idea that the market controls both the offerings
and quality of goods and services requires an open free market (as
more or less explained in Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith), neither
an unregulated monopoly nor oligopolies. There is no reason to
assume that Microsoft will either "play fair" nor work in the
public interest (see statements in the Association for Computing
Machinery code of ethics).
The issue before this list is the ability for the systems
administrator (administrator/end-user for one's own laptop) to
select whatever operating environment legally can be used on the
hardware. In particular, under the UEFI restrictions, given that a
licensed-for-free system such as Linux (including SL and other EL
clones) may not have a key recognized by the hardware if the only
keys the hardware vendor provides are for Microsoft, under which
scenario only Microsoft approved environments would be allowed to
boot.
If law -- not just some nebulous "market force" to which an
entrenched monopolist mostly is immune -- does not require machine
manufacturers not install a Microsoft-only boot -- but rather allow
the hardware owner to select the booted / installed system -- then
UEFI might be a nuisance, but not an insurmountable barrier. As it
stands, UEFI appears to be such an insurmountable barrier.
I do not assume that Microsoft will "play fair" out of the goodness
of their corporate heart. As the various agencies have brought down
the hammer on Microsoft for their anticompetitive practices,
Microsoft now has a financial interest in remaining fairly
competitive. Given continued oversight (and if the US DOJ is
disinclined, the EU is), we may be reasonably confident that they are
not going to try and lock everyone else out.
What does Microsoft gain by locking down a PC? Casual users are not
going to install alternative operating systems anyways. Technically
proficient users will only be encouraged to find ways to break the
secure boot process (for a real example, consoles, and the debacle
over Sony's Playstation 3) - and that is *not* in Microsoft's
interest.
There is much hue and cry over the potential for UEFI abuse - and we
yet see no concrete evidence of abuse. There is no proof that
Microsoft is trying to stamp out alternative operating systems with
such tactics and direct statements by high-level personnel that they,
in fact, are not trying to.
If, indeed, Microsoft forces their OEM/VARs to lock down the boot
process, I'll eat plenty of crow.
From your statement: if the US DOJ is disinclined, the EU is
As a result of this reality, transnational hardware vendors sometimes
(often?) provide two versions of nominally the same computer. One,
typically the version for sale in the USA, uses hardware for which there
is no Linux driver, and comes with MS Windows with MS Internet Explorer
pre-installed. The second, for sale in the EU, has hardware for which
the manufacturer has released sufficient information to write a device
driver (not provided that information strictly to Microsoft under
restrictive covenant, requiring at best reverse engineering to write a
device driver), and typically allows the end-user to select the web
browser application to install and use (e.g., Opera, Firefox, etc., not
just strictly MS IE by default) even if MS Win is pre-installed.
In the USA, we have the finest branches of government (legislative,
judicial, and executive) that money can buy -- particularly since the
USA Supreme Court decision in Citizens United putting no restrictions
upon for-profit corporations -- or as one of the USA Republican (Tea
Party) Presidential candidates exclaimed, "corporations are persons
too". As a result, I for one have no confidence than the USA Department
of Justice will do much if anything effectively to restrict the MS
monopoly. This is a socio-political reality of what amounts to a
non-free market.
But -- we must return to the practical issue: can an non-MS Windows
environment boot under a UEFI dedicated to MS?
Yasha Karant
