I always thought that the secure boot is a very, very, very bad idea.
In fact the whole UEFI in general I think it is a clusterfuck of mishmashed random ideas, some good, many bad.
What I intend to do personally, is attempt to don't use secure boot.
And this all might explain the e-mail I got from Lenovo 10 minutes ago...
I asked them for a non-Windows machine.
They replied saying that they from now on only manufacture machines with Windows. At first I was: "wtf? why?" now this article remembered me that now we have firmware tied to Microsoft, and this explains then why ThinkPads must come with Windows.
Here in Brazil this is illegal, and Lenovo for example got sued (and lost) once. I hope a rain of lawsuits make this shit stop.
I think the Germans were pretty concerned about this, too. I could definitely see a lawsuit against them there, considering how "weird" (but usually right) Germany is when it comes to things like these.
What exactly is illegal? Selling a machine with OS or not selling it without one?
And as for the "this explains then why ThinkPads must come with Windows" - no. It doesn't explain it. Secure boot has to be present on Windows certified machine, not the other way around. Lenovo can sell whatever they want (but apparently it's beneficial for them economically to only sell Windows machines).
Also, certified machine has to have secure boot disable-able. So it's not about you not being able to use the machine with Linux, it's about not being able to use Secure Boot with Linux.
What is illegal is not selling a computer without an operating system. From what I understand, brazilian law considers the PC and OS two different products and it is illegal for a company to only sell you one product if you also buy another one tied together. In my company, we buy all our servers and workstations from Dell and it never comes with a Windows license unless you explicitly request to the sales person. Although, I remember at least one case where we bought a laptop and the seller said it would come with the most basic windows 7 version because it was free for that particular laptop model. I don't know what would have happened if we insisted in having it shipped without it.
IANAL, but I think the key difference is that these operating systems are not sold as a standalone component you can buy and install on any pc you like. That's why it applies to a Windows license and not to a Mac OS license for example.
If it's like France; it's technically illegal too, apple just never has been in front of a judge about it (and when they do, I guess they will argue that they sell the disk and not the license to use the OS).
Responding from a French point of view, so that might not match Brazil (but does match Germany): you can not tie a material product with an immaterial one, if you do not also sell the material product as a stand alone.
You cannot sell a car with an insurance if you don't sell the car alone.
You cannot sell a phone with a plan if you don't sell the phone alone (see: iPhone 1 release in Europe).
You cannot sell a computer with an OS license if you don't sell the computer alone (you're not buying the disk, but the license to use the software on it).
Interesting, I know that in Brazil the same law applies even if both products are immaterial. For example, it was common for nightclubs here to give you an option of charging less (or nothing at all) for the entrance into the nightclub if you spent a certain amount of money in drinks or whatever else they sold inside. This was also prohibited by the same law since it was tying two separate "products". Wikipedia article (in portuguese) on this law cites that even ( http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venda_casada ).
You cannot sell a computer with an OS license if you don't sell the computer alone (you're not buying the disk, but the license to use the software on it).
Sure you can. I bought a very nice MacBook Air in Paris a couple of months back - and you most definitely can't buy a MacBook Air without OS X.
The fact that something is illegal doesn't mean people are never doing it; it only means they lose when they go to court.
You cannot drive over the speed limit in France, but "sure you can, I just did this morning".
There are plenty of court cases, all won by the buyers, where the complaint was that the computer was sold with a windows license, and couldn't be bought without.
I think the issue is: to buy a Lenovo machine is to buy Windows. There is no other option but to have to pay for Windows with your machine. One can't just buy a laptop with nothing on it. This can be seen as unfair to the customer in many countries and therefore, illegal.
Can I buy a Toyota car without the Michelin tires they bundle and get a discount? I want to install my custom tires and have no need for the tires they bundle.
If they put a mechanism to specifically total the car if you try to use any other brand, I'd say they would be getting sued before you can say "anti-trust".
I did something similar to this with my Volkswagen. I wanted different tires, wheels, and a different stereo from what was on the car they in the lot. I ended up paying about $500 more, but received exactly what I wanted.
First of all, the firmware does not prevent you to use other OS. Only one function is locked to Windows and it seems Microsoft is open to allowing others to boot with it [sidenote].
Secondly, every single iPhone/iPad is locked to boot iOS; most of the phones with Android are locked as well. (And obviously Windows phones are locked too). And by locked I mean locked, not few clicks away from using the device as you wish (as is the case with notebooks and desktop computers). How come it's not rendered illegal?
Sidenote: I agree with the fact that Microsoft shouldn't be the one deciding who gets the key and who doesn't. My opinion on this is that if everyone can't agree on one impartial organization then hardware manufacturers should be the one deciding it. Obviously it would be best if users could add their own keys.
Not sure why you seem to assume I give Google a free pass.
Hope they get sued to high hell, but in the meanwhile I'm just not buying them as a computer that's useless outside of Google's cloud is also outside of my interests.
To be fair, they also clearly publish how to enable "Developer mode" which lets you do more or less whatever you want for each new model of Chromebook.
>Does it get a free pass because it's not a monopoly?
That would not be unprecedented. Part of the US anti-trust code says you cannot tie one product to a monopoly product. It's one of the reasons MS lost their anti-trust case vs the US DOJ back in the 90s, illegally tying secondary products to their Windows monopoly.
That might not directly apply in this case, not sure, but to answer your question, yes being a monopoly or not does effect how anti-trust laws are applied to you.
I think I'm largely out of touch with the average computer buyer of today but is it literally only about a sticker? What if instead of "Windows 8 Certified" the manufacturers put a "With Windows 8" and completely disregard the entire secureboot fiasco? Is there an option to NOT play Microsoft's game at all? I assume that MS would allow manufacturers to bypass the SecureBoot requirement if they don't want to avail of the "Windows 8 Certified" sticker.
More importantly, how much would this sway a decision of a consumer (one place where I find 'consumer' better than 'customer') who sees two similar laptops with very similar prices except one say "With Windows 8" and the other says "Windows 8 Certified".
Could the manufacturers not come up with their own marketing campaign or something like "OpenSource Initiative Certified" or something like that[obviously they can't use OSI's name but you get the idea].
I'm not sure Microsoft would let you sell Windows on non-certified hardware. That is you would have to use non-oem license and it will be more expensive for you. So the prices probably wouldn't be similar.
Is that really the appropriate response to a company that basically made a choice to not offer the type of product you are seeking? Buy what you want from someone else ... problem solved. When you can't buy from someone else...then there's a problem.
>That is because most of the PCs end up being installed with pirated Windows by the local tech guru.
My Vietnamese friend had to explain that the staff in the shop expected to earn $5 installing the pirated windows on it... They where not best pleased that I intended to do it myself (with a licensed copy obviously!)
Because UEFI is overly complicated and more akin to a mini-OS. All most people really want is for the firmware to set up the hardware and then hand over to the bootloader.
Isn't the BIOS supposed to be a mini-OS. It provides a common interface for different hardware platforms so software works on all of them.
Of course then our address space increased, so you can only use many of those BIOS features in real mode. Then modern OS's reimplented those BIOS features.
What we have now is an old mini-OS that has been hacked around to run modern OSes. UEFI is a welcome solution to that problem.
Isn't that what is already does? In fact it is so fast handing control to the OS that in Windows 8 Microsoft had to add an option to restart into UEFI settings mode. Which features are unneeded in your opinion?
Sounds more like a user education problem to me. We don't let people drive without a license I don't see why we should worry about the people who use computers and don't bother to read up and understand what they're using.
In before "everyone should be able to use computers and they should just work" - I agree, it should be like this; however, the hardware, software, and usability has just never been at that level - and won't be for some time. Thus I dislike that argument.
I do understand this means we should be making things better as we go, I just don't see how this is one of those things, nor do I see how proper education should be lacking for the time being. To put that in the car analogy: Should we let people drive around because they need to get to work today but don't have time to sit the license right now?
Disclaimer: Opinion, and I'm a huge usability fan and hope one day things do "just work", I'm just also a realist and don't see the logic behind letting people use something before they or the thing is ready for them.
Edit: Just realised I went on a bit of a mad rant and kind of went a bit off topic. Apologies.
In Brazil or anywhere, can you buy a car with the default sound system ripped out and get a refund for it? What about without the default tires, seats or even the engine?
The default tires and default sound system have residual value when ripped out. I am sure that the dealer would be happy to give you some fraction of their worth and then provide you the car without them. Or you could sell them yourself.
Windows, OTOH, is something that you pay for, but generally comes in an OEM license. This license is non-transferable in most cases.
I'm not sure the dealer would be willing to refund you for the factory sound system because the residual value of the factory sound system is almost certainly miniscule compared to the cost of labor involved in removing it.
Why is the residual value so small? Lack of standardization. A lot of automakers use their own mounting system for the head unit, which means if I bought a Lexus and asked the dealer to take out the head unit, the dealer wouldn't be able to turn around and sell it to somebody who wanted a better unit in their Ford. It goes beyond the mounting system though.
A lot of automakers have their own plug and wiring standards too. If you buy an aftermarket head unit, you usually get a pigtail that plugs into it with unterminated wires on the other side. Then you buy a wiring harness kit specific to your car which has unterminated wires running into a plug that connects to the vehicle harness. Soldering ensues (or wire nuts or electrical tape for the lazy...). Since the aftermarket does have a strong incentive to standardize, the wires on the pigtail that come with the head unit match the colors of the wires in the harness kit, which actually make the process pretty straightforward if you're even halfway handy.
What all of that means is that the unit out of your hypothetical Lexus (which doesn't come with a pigtail with unterminated wires) is going to be hell to get working in somebody else's Ford. Between the physical and electrical incompatibility, the residual value of a head unit has to be pretty close to zero for anybody who doesn't own basically the same car.
I'm as much in favor of car analogies as the next person, but I don't think yours really fits the situation.
It might fit if speeder was trying to buy a laptop without RAM or a hard drive so he could put in his own, but my reading of your comment is that you're talking about having a physical part of the product removed and wanting a refund. What speeder is asking for seems more like asking Lenovo to offer an option to order a car with an upgraded the sound system, tires, seats, or engine. This is something many auto makers offer.
It seems that Lenovo, in this case, has decided that the market for cars with steel wheels is too small, and is selling cars without that option. You can only get alloy wheels on your Lenovo car.
How many makers of car stereos control 90% of the car stereo market, and use that market share to force makers of cars to put their stereos in every car they manufacture? Oh, none? Well then your analogy fucking sucks and you should stop using it.
In fact the whole UEFI in general I think it is a clusterfuck of mishmashed random ideas, some good, many bad.
What I intend to do personally, is attempt to don't use secure boot.
And this all might explain the e-mail I got from Lenovo 10 minutes ago...
I asked them for a non-Windows machine. They replied saying that they from now on only manufacture machines with Windows. At first I was: "wtf? why?" now this article remembered me that now we have firmware tied to Microsoft, and this explains then why ThinkPads must come with Windows.
Here in Brazil this is illegal, and Lenovo for example got sued (and lost) once. I hope a rain of lawsuits make this shit stop.