| Complaint Against MS 'Secure Boot' Filed By EU Linux Group Linux users file EU complaint against Microsoft:
A Spanish association representing open-source software users has filed a complaint against Microsoft Corp to the European Commission, in a new challenge to the Windows developer following a hefty fine earlier this month.
The 8,000-member Hispalinux, which represents users and developers of the Linux operating system in Spain, said Microsoft had made it difficult for users of computers sold with its Windows 8 platform to switch to Linux and other operating systems.
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.
The group said it was "a de facto technological jail for computer booting systems ... making Microsoft's Windows platform less neutral than ever".
"This is absolutely anti-competitive," Lancho told Reuters. "It's really bad for the user and for the European software industry."
A spokesman for EU Competition Chief Joaquin Almunia declined to comment.
The European Commission has fined Microsoft, the global leader in PC operating systems, 2.2 billion euros ($2.83 billion)over the past decade, making it the world's biggest offender of European Union business rules.
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. |
|
 GILXA1226Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-29
Dayton, OH | Isn't this as easy as 1. 'turn off secure boot', 2. install linux. Unless they mean the ARM version, in which case I could understand only if they've also filed a complaint against Apple for the IPad.
--
We don't give a d@mn for the whole state of Michigan... we're from OHIO! O!H! ... I!O! |
|
Reviews:
 ·Velcom
 ·TekSavvy Cable
| said by GILXA1226:Isn't this as easy as 1. 'turn off secure boot', 2. install linux. Unless they mean the ARM version, in which case I could understand only if they've also filed a complaint against Apple for the IPad.
Which is WAAAAY over the head of your typical user of the "Ubuntu operating system" 
--
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.
—George Bernard Shaw |
|
 JohnInSJPremium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
·Comcast
| reply to FF4m3
The EU apparently hopes to solve its debt crisis by constantly dreaming up ways to sue Microsoft. Who they somehow believe is still a dominant player. Despite the constant and dire suggestions that it is rapidly becoming irrelevant.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us |
|
davePremium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:7 | The EU executive is doing it under pressure from member country Finland, which owns most of Linus Torvalds. |
|
 Woody79_00I run Linux am I still a PC?Premium
join:2004-07-08
united state | I for one have NEVER been in support of Secure Boot. Secure Boot shouldn't even exist at all. This suit has plenty of merit.
listen it comes down to "property right" either you "own" the physical hardware in the computer or you don't...which one is it?
Microsoft, or any other software vendor for that matter has the right to sell you software with whatever terms they want, they DONT however have the right to "modify" hardware settings they don't nor ever owned to begin with without the owners permission.
Secure Boot is not about security, its about MS doing anything they can to lock out competitors. MS just thinks like any other monopoly which is:
"Add 1 more step to the complexity of installing another OS and 8 out of 10 people won't understand or bother to do so"
Its important to understand, folks like us that make up this forum are the minority....80% of the population probably doesn't even know how to get into the BIOS, let alone understand or change UEFI Secure Boot...they will be intimidated and not mess with it.
also, messing with BIOS settings can render the computer unbootable depending on the hardware if you don't know what your doing.
If they were so adamant about this Secure Boot thing...it should have shipped with Secure Boot DISABLED by default...if the user wants to use it, it should have to be turned on....and only those who know what they are doing will use it.
By default when you buy a PC, the hardware belongs to you, and it should ship with ZERO restrictions or settings needing to be changed to install the software of your choice...this Secure Boot stuff is just nonsense...systems shouldn't even ship with it on...
its all about MS locking in users then about security....purely a marketing decision....The choice should be left up to the user, but the user should not be locked out by default....if he/she wants to lock themselves in, then that should be their choice...not MS and the OEM's making that choice for them. |
|
GILXA1226Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-29
Dayton, OH | said by Woody79_00:Its important to understand, folks like us that make up this forum are the minority....80% of the population probably doesn't even know how to get into the BIOS, let alone understand or change UEFI Secure Boot...they will be intimidated and not mess with it.
And rightfully or wrongly so, those 80% wouldn't/couldn't care less whether they can install Linux/*BSD/*nix on there computer.
Again, I will ask where the complaint against Apple is.
--
We don't give a d@mn for the whole state of Michigan... we're from OHIO! O!H! ... I!O! |
|
 jimkyleBtrieve GuyPremium
join:2002-10-20
Oklahoma City, OK
kudos:2
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to Woody79_00
said by Woody79_00:Microsoft, or any other software vendor for that matter has the right to sell you software with whatever terms they want, they DONT however have the right to "modify" hardware settings they don't nor ever owned to begin with without the owners permission. While I share your distaste for Secure Boot, the fact is that Microsoft did not modify any hardware setting on your computer. What they did do is require that the manufacturer build the machine with that setting turned on, in order to qualify for the "Win 8 compatible" logo.
They also require that the hardware include the ability to turn it off, for x86-based systems, but this requirement isn't present for ARM-based systems.
As the buyer, you have the option not to purchase a system that includes Secure Boot. Unfortunately, systems without this "feature" seem to be rarer than hens' teeth!
And some, if not most, manufacturers seem to have taken great pains to obscure that required "turn off" capability. To top it off, the claimed security doesn't exist, since a "shim" loader has been published and could be included in any malware!!!
--
Jim Kyle |
|
davePremium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:7 | reply to Woody79_00
said by Woody79_00:Ilisten it comes down to "property right" either you "own" the physical hardware in the computer or you don't...which one is it? Neither. What you wrote is completely irrelevant (on intel hardware).
There's an on/off switch in the BIOS. If the switch is off, you can boot anything. If the switch is on, you can only boot signed binaries. The switch is under your control.
If the switch is on, the signing key must be known to the BIOS. Microsoft has said that if the vendor wants a Windows logo, there needs to be a Microsoft key. Microsoft has not said that there cannot be other keys.
Now, how does any of this mean you have lost control over the hardware?
and it should ship with ZERO restrictions or settings needing to be changed to install the software of your choice. |
|
 SteveI know your IP addressConsultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
kudos:5 | said by dave:and it should ship with ZERO restrictions or settings needing to be changed to install the software of your choice. Right. So I shouldn't need to tell the BIOS if I want to use modern SATA disks on an operating system that doesn't support AHCI mode, because that somehow infringes my right of ownership? I agree with him; it's totally unreasonable to require you to set the boot-from-CD option in the BIOS when it could just figure it out from your intentions. |
|
|
|
| reply to FF4m3
Microsoft hit with competition complaint over Windows 8 UEFI Secure Boot
Hispalinux lawyer Jose Maria Lancho told Reuters that UEFI Secure Boot was a "de facto technological jail for computer booting systems" and that the feature was "absolutely anti-competitive".
In a blog post, Hispalinux points to what it considers potential breaches of Europe's antitrust laws and consumer laws.
Windows 8 obstructs competition by preventing any rival operating system to boot directly on the hardware, while the choice of the system on the hardware reflected an agreement between hardware manufacturers and Microsoft, not the consumer, it says.
According to Hispalinux, the agreements between Microsoft and hardware makers were prohibited under the European Union's Treaty Article 81.1 and 82, dealing with competition law, and several articles covering European consumer laws.
The European Commission is obliged to investigate any complaint it receives, and take action of any anti-competitive behaviour is found.
ZDNet has not received a response from Microsoft. |
|
 rexbinaryMod KingPremium
join:2005-01-26
Plano, TX
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to GILXA1226
said by GILXA1226:Again, I will ask where the complaint against Apple is.
Apple supports loading other operating systems onto their Macintoshes, and even offers a free tool to assist.
»www.apple.com/support/bootcamp/
--
Verizon FiOS subscriber since 2005 | Mac owner since 1990 | Fedora user since 2006 | CentOS user since 2007 | "Anyone who is unwilling to learn is entitled to absolutely nothing." - graysonf | EDIT: I seldom post without an edit. |
|
davePremium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:7 | All that bootcamp stuff is much easier than setting the 'secure boot' switch off in the BIOS, which is alleged to be beyond the capability of most Linux users. |
|
GILXA1226Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-29
Dayton, OH | reply to rexbinary
Goes back to my original question... if the group is complaining that Windows RT cannot be removed, then they also need to file suit against Apple. If they are just complaining about x86 based models, all they have to do is turn it off. This complaint seems very frivolous.
--
We don't give a d@mn for the whole state of Michigan... we're from OHIO! O!H! ... I!O! |
|
 EUSKill cancerPremium
join:2002-09-10
canada
·voip.ms
1 edit | reply to dave
said by dave:All that bootcamp stuff is much easier than setting the 'secure boot' switch off in the BIOS, which is alleged to be beyond the capability of most Linux users.
While your remark is sarcastic, and while it doesn't bother me to turn off secure boot, or self-sign a certificate, if I change "most" to "new" in your sentence, then I can understand why some are flustered by the added hoops to jump through.
Whether it's actionable, dunno.
--
~ Project Hope ~ |
|
davePremium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:7 | OK, but to a large extent, what people are buying are computers that are sold as Windows systems with installed Windows software. We seem to be discussing a hypothetical person who's going to buy a Windows PC and then install Linux, but not be confident enough to crack open the BIOS setup.
I think we can ignore the bare-motherboard category of purchasers here, since they will have no difficulty with this.
That seems to leave us with PCs that are sold without software but which nevertheless have secure-boot enabled so they can get the designed-for-Windows logo. Will there be any of these? |
|
EUSKill cancerPremium
join:2002-09-10
canada Reviews:
·voip.ms
| Good question, my guess is no.
Personally, I fell into camp #1, and looking back, it was daunting enough to install a new o/s without having to think about BIOS.
That being said, Google wasn't around then, I relied on the thick book that came with a RH6 disk, and still couldn't get my modem to dial, because as you pointed out, it was built for windows.
Perhaps there's a trade off between amount of knowledge required to get things set up vs. the ease of getting the answers.
--
~ Project Hope ~ |
|
SteveI know your IP addressConsultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
kudos:5 | said by EUS:Good question, my guess is no.
Personally, I fell into camp #1, and looking back, it was daunting enough to install a new o/s without having to think about BIOS. We're not talking about requiring a hex debugger here; it's hitting <F2> and using some arrow keys. This is not even in the same magnitude as installing an operating system.
Those who suggest that it's so daunting to change a BIOS setting are either intentionally being inflammatory, or are too dumb to use a computer in the first place. |
|
EUSKill cancerPremium
join:2002-09-10
canada | reply to dave
NM, thought it was eaten. |
|
EUSKill cancerPremium
join:2002-09-10
canada Reviews:
·voip.ms
| reply to Steve
said by Steve:said by EUS:Good question, my guess is no.
Personally, I fell into camp #1, and looking back, it was daunting enough to install a new o/s without having to think about BIOS. We're not talking about requiring a hex debugger here; it's hitting <F2> and using some arrow keys. This is not even in the same magnitude as installing an operating system. Those who suggest that it's so daunting to change a BIOS setting are either intentionally being inflammatory, or are too dumb to use a computer in the first place. I don't see a problem with wanting to run a new O/S without having to learn everything about every single piece of the box.
--
~ Project Hope ~ |
|
