
Linux users file EU complaint against Microsoft - recoiledsnake
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/thomson-reuters/130326/exclusive-open-software-group-files-complaint-eu-against-micros
======
neya
From the article:

    
    
        Microsoft's relations with the EU executive have been tense since 2004, when the EU found that the company had abused its market leader position by tying Windows Media Player to the Windows software package.
    
        But Microsoft broke its 2009 pledge and was fined 561 million euros by the EU Commission on March 6 for failing to offer users a choice of web browser.
    

I'm no Microsoft fanboi, but, let's put it this way - I develop my own
operating system, I develop my own browser, I develop my own media player. And
I decide to bundle it/promote it along with an operating system I DESIGNED and
DEVELOPED. What the fuck seems to be the problem with that?

I'm not limiting your ability in anyway - You can still install any other
browser/media player you like and you can remove the ones I've provided too,
just like any other..

Come on dudes, if I don't have the freedom to bundle MY software the way I
like, then how is it fair? It's like saying I can't bundle a headphone for an
Mp3 player I manufactured and the user should buy what he/she wants.

If I got something wrong here, please enlighten me..

~~~
rajanikanthr
stupidity of EU at peaks.. thats it

~~~
octix
Of course :) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft>

------
javipas
Besides the previous comment from the EU, there's an article written by
Matthew Garrett (developer of the Secure Boot solution at The Linux
Foundation) that explains also the big difference between Secure Boot and
Restricted Boot.

<http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/23817.html>

That complaint is not really reasonable and is going nowhere, I think.

~~~
mjg59
The Linux Foundation developed their own solution, entirely separate from
mine.

------
nivla
My comment from another thread posted earlier with the same news that happened
to disappear from the front page[1]:

Alright this is getting ridiculous, we aren't living in the 90s anymore and we
should be encouraging healthy competition. We now have better alternatives
like Macbooks, Chromebooks etc. I can't buy into the reason that Microsoft
issued secure boot only to undermine Linux. Infact, Microsoft requires all x86
Windows 8 machines to be able to turn off secure boot and/or add their own
keys. This also applies for their own manufactured Surface x86 tablets.

I am really looking forward to something like secure boot. Why? Imagine using
Truecrypt to encrypt your entire hard drive with 3 layers encryption, and only
to defeated by a pesky 10kb keylogging bootloader malware. So unless someone
has an alternative solution to this, I am sticking up for secure boot and the
ability to add my own keys.

[1] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5446148>

------
scholia
Which illustrates that, despite what you might think, it's possible to be
Linux user _and_ stupid.

------
kunai
Wait... Didn't Linus say Secure Boot wasn't a problem and that it was actually
a good thing?

Or am I just remembering things wrong?

[http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/06/microsoft-
windo...](http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/06/microsoft-
windows8-secure-boot/)

~~~
pslam
Wired is selectively quoting and interpreting. Linus is talking in
generalities and unfortunately that means he's missing the specific, immediate
problem that a lot of people are going to face.

Secure Boot in itself isn't necessarily a problem, and is a good thing in that
it can actually increase security. However, if you don't have the ability to
install your own certificate (or get a leaf cert), then it completely prevents
you from installing your own OS. If a PC comes with only Microsoft's cert
installed, then you can only install Microsoft software.

If the OS refuses to boot when you disable Secure Boot, then you can't dual
boot the pre-installed OS, and it takes a lot of effort to get things working
again. Plus, you lose Secure Boot for both OS's.

This is all a stupid mess which could have been solved by allowing users to
install their own certificates - and I don't mean the Fedora solution of also
having their cert installed and then handing Fedora a lot of money for a leaf.

~~~
cooldeal
>If the OS refuses to boot when you disable Secure Boot, then you can't dual
boot the pre-installed OS, and it takes a lot of effort to get things working
again.

What? Which OS refuses to boot when you disable Secure Boot?

>This is all a stupid mess which could have been solved by allowing users to
install their own certificates

Exactly which UEFI Secure Boot does. Here's a guide.

[http://blog.hansenpartnership.com/owning-your-
windows-8-uefi...](http://blog.hansenpartnership.com/owning-your-
windows-8-uefi-platform/)

~~~
pslam
> What? Which OS refuses to boot when you disable Secure Boot?

The one which was installed with secure boot enabled. My reading is the OS
will prevent forward progress when it notices secure boot was bypassed when it
expected it to be on. Never tried this myself - I'm likely misinformed.

> Exactly which UEFI Secure Boot does.

And apparently optional, and not something every machine implements, which was
the subject of a LOT of stories a year back. Did this ever get resolved as
being mandatory, and/or did all UEFI providers figure it was best practice in
the end?

------
alexsilver
Whenever these complaints/lawsuits come up, I always wonder why Apple is never
part of them...

~~~
mkr-hn
Apple is off in its own hardware and software ecosystem, so the potential for
widespread harm is small. Microsoft has clout with the people who make the
hardware most people use, so there's considerable potential for damage
depending on how Microsoft's will is implemented.

~~~
scholia
Apple has plenty of potential for harm via its iPhone and iPad ranges, both of
which are locked down.... However, neither has a monopoly maket share.

~~~
sounds
Exactly!

Why aren't people complaining about Samsung locking their phones? (both
carrier locks and locking the root account)

Ok, maybe the best solution is to vote with your wallet. It worked for me :)

------
VMG
As an European linux user, I'm not happy about the government meddling in the
hardware or software business, even if it is to my perceived benefit. Just
stay out of it and let the customers decide.

~~~
glogla
That would be hard, if Microsoft makes arrangement for you not to be able to
install anything that's not Windows on any laptop ever. Or even on any non-
crappy laptop ever.

~~~
VMG
How? It couldn't possibly pay off everybody.

------
IvarTJ
Can someone explain why bricking an infected computer is a good idea?

I might understand it if the boot sequence just gives a warning with
information, suggestions and a "Don't warn me again" option, but from what I
hear it just makes the machine unusable.

~~~
DanBC
Windows 8 is meant to be used by people who don't know much about computers.
Thus, the approach they take might not fit skilled users.

Ideally the novice user will take their machine to a clueful technician who
will wipe the drives and reinstall the OS, and then offer to set up firewalls
and anti virus software.

Unfortunately novice users often do not back up their data so wiping the drive
is unpopular.

And there are many technicians who think that malware removal without wiping
the drives is acceptable.

------
cooldeal
EU had already previously responded to this and I believe this complaint by a
"8000-strong" body is not going to change it.

>The Commission is aware of the Microsoft Windows 8 security requirements.
According to these requirements, in order to conform to the Windows 8
certification program, computer manufacturers (‘OEMs’) have to use Unified
Extensible Firmware Interface (‘UEFI’) secure boot.

>The Commission has at its disposal various legal instruments to ensure that
competition is preserved in the markets. The basic provisions are contained in
the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) in Article 101
and 102 TFEU.

>Whether there is a violation of EU competition rules depends however on a
range of factual, legal and economic considerations. The Commission is
currently not in possession of evidence suggesting that the Windows 8 security
requirements would result in practices in violation of EU competition rules as
laid down in Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. In particular, on the basis of the
information currently available to the Commission it appears that the OEMs can
decide to give the end users the option to disable the UEFI secure boot.

>The Commission will however continue to monitor the market developments so as
to ensure that competition and a level playing field are preserved amongst all
market players.

From
[http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?referen...](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2012-011084&language=EN)

------
recoiledsnake
>In its 14-page complaint, Hispalinux said Windows 8 contained an "obstruction
mechanism" called UEFI Secure Boot that controls the start-up of the computer
and means users must seek keys from Microsoft to install another operating
system.

Windows 8 contains no such "obstruction mechanism". It will happily boot even
if secure boot is not supported on that machine or if it's disabled. Maybe
they're trying to get some free publicity with misleading hyperbole and FUD on
this as the EU has already knocked down this kind of complaint before.

~~~
benev
I get your point, but I think that it's not quite right. If you get a computer
with Win 8 pre-installed, it won't boot if you turn off Secure Boot. However,
I don't have a Win 8 machine on hand to confirm this.

Of course, if you have the install discs, you could then re-install it with
Secure Boot disabled, but that's a significant extra step (and you can only do
it if your OEM supplied you with the discs).

~~~
recoiledsnake
> If you get a computer with Win 8 pre-installed, it won't boot if you turn
> off Secure Boot.

No, that's not true, it will continue to boot. There's just too much
misleading information being spread.

