Microsoft will Give All Current Users (including pirates) Free Upgrade

[wewantutopia]

to Windows 10.

They must really want to hold on to their market share.

http://www.cnet.com/news/windows-10-launches-this-summer-targets-current-pirates-with-free-update/

[Dragonbite]

Microsoft, I suspect, are trying to move Enterprises from Windows 7 since there is a lot of resistance for companies to move to Windows 8.n.

I will probably upgrade my Windows 7 laptop to 10 (it's dual-boot already) once I make sure I have the means to re-install Windows 7 (just in case) as well as to boot into the installed Linux (fix grub).

[sffvba[e0rt]

Give away Windows to grow market share and dependency on it while using the trusted Apple model of App Store dependencies to keep em pushing in the $'s...

[QIII]

To be fair, I think that this is a better business model in terms of user value.

Free OS, buy the goodies you want or use freeware/open source if you choose.

[sffvba[e0rt]

To be fair, I think that this is a better business model in terms of user value.

Free OS, buy the goodies you want or use freeware/open source if you choose.

One of the reasons Valve has been betting so heavily on Linux is to get out of this "new Windows" world as there will soon not be much room for competition... because that makes you less money. I would like to think that you would still get to run what you want how you want it but I suspect that it will be a case of it becoming more difficult (verging on impossible very often).

But I guess only time will tell...

[Dragonbite]

By including Pirates then their reported adoption rate (market share) is increased even if they didn't get paid for all of those instances. Never was a factor before, but their market share is getting chipped away by Apple, ChromeOS, Android and Linux!

[sammiev]

I may just try it then when the time comes.

[Dragonbite]

Chances are, if you have used Windows 8 it shouldn't be too far of a stretch. I haven't so it takes a bit for me to get used to navigating around the start menu/screen/??? thing.

[MartyBuntu]

I bailed out around XP SP2.

I don't care either way.

[Mike_Walsh]

Like MartyBuntu, XP was the last version I really used to any extent. Tried Vista, thought it was awful.....and decided MS and I had come to a parting of the ways.

With Ubuntu and Puppy Linux, I have no reason to look back. :D


Regards,

Mike.

[SantaFe]

Looks like MS is trying to get Windows 10 on Smartphones. http://www.techworm.net/2015/03/microsoft-wants-to-convert-your-android-smartphone-to-a-windows-10-one.html

Now there's an concept, turn your Smartphone into a not so smartphone. :D

Now MS will probably figure out how to hide it as an innocent looking android app & next thing you know, you got an unwanted change of O/S. ;)

[GreatDanton]

I wouldn't upgrade if they paid me for it. Let them have their childish os.

[kerry_s]

bummer just wiped a couple of days ago, it was just to slow for me, drove me crazy. any linux install runs circles around windows 10.
i pitty the poor windows users.

[mastablasta]

hmm it would be good if I could upgrade windows 7 starter properly (I mean having all the drivers and all available for 10) and then I would upgrade it with 64 bit, and increase the ram in that small subnotebook or whatever they are called now. windows 7 starter works quite well on it but unfortunately it can't take more than 2 GB ram. Kubuntu 64 bit on the other side of the disk can take more ram in but it is not working so well. the apps also.


Chances are, if you have used Windows 8 it shouldn't be too far of a stretch. I haven't so it takes a bit for me to get used to navigating around the start menu/screen/??? thing.

actually it is not that much different to gnome shell or homerunner or whatever that big KDE menu is called. I rarely access it mostly I just type what I want to run and it finds it. kind of like in Kubuntu. or the hud maybe in Ubuntu.

[11ryanc]

No such thing as free here, there's a catch. Yes, Microsoft desperately wants to migrate Windows 7 users more than anything. Just as they did with XP. New machines already have BIOS locks, which alone is too advanced for the average user to get around. PC shops LOVE this. So majority of OEM's will ship MS's latest and greatest, so called. Maybe one day it will end up like Apple's iOS, being in need to have a digital signature to downgrade. Seems to be the path, especially with tablets and variations of touch/PC tablets coming out.
And sorry, not very impressed with it. Seems like Windows 8.1 with a built in Start Menu, and somewhat iOS-like.DX 12 is my only interest in this product.
On my machines, I most prefer Vista + SP2, Server 2008 R2, XP x64, and yes of course Ubuntu (Xubuntu).

[monkeybrain20122]

Yawn. More monopolist antics. I quitted ******* around XP.

[CantankRus]

It gives me great pleasure to witness the pure desperation of microsoft trying to
pry it's way into a market where there is choice.
I like it so much I listen to Twit.tv Windows Weekly podcast just to hear
them moan every week.

[user1397]

I would be so down to get rid of windows completely, but currently it is just too convenient for work/school. I don't like virtual machines and how much of a pain it is to transfer files between the guest and host OS, and I don't like using WINE if i can help it. MS office is the only thing holding me back at this point :(

Even if I did just try to use windows through a virtual machine only, I only have the factory backup of my windows 8.1 install, so I'm pretty sure I can't install that to a virtual machine.

[vasa1]

To be fair, I think that this is a better business model in terms of user value.

Free OS, buy the goodies you want or use freeware/open source if you choose.

I don't understand how it's better in terms of user value for those accustomed to using pirated software. To my mind, it's an attempt to reduce piracy by offering a "one-time amnesty". After that, the pirate is hooked. I'm not sure that Chinese pirates will fall for this. Till now, Microsoft has been dismally incapable of creating an OS that can't be cracked.

[Dragonbite]

I don't understand how it's better in terms of user value for those accustomed to using pirated software. To my mind, it's an attempt to reduce piracy by offering a "one-time amnesty". After that, the pirate is hooked. I'm not sure that Chinese pirates will fall for this. Till now, Microsoft has been dismally incapable of creating an OS that can't be cracked.

Unless there is somethign built-in to Windows 10 to better keep people from being able to pirate and/or abuse this one-time offer? Something that gives them an edge but only if they convert to 10.

[DuckHook]

...I don't like virtual machines and how much of a pain it is to transfer files between the guest and host OS, and I don't like using WINE if i can help it. MS office is the only thing holding me back at this point :(

Even if I did just try to use windows through a virtual machine only, I only have the factory backup of my windows 8.1 install, so I'm pretty sure I can't install that to a virtual machine....hmmm. Interesting perspective. I have the opposite experience. Transferring files between VM and host is a breeze. In fact, I don't need to transfer at all since Vbox allows me to define any host directory as shared. But with respect to MSOffice, you are quite right; MSOffice does not run in WINE. If you can't make the transition to LibreOffice, you are stuck either rebooting or VMing.

VMs have come a long way, especially on modern halfway-decent HW. Except for games, I find little lag running even demanding everyday Windows apps in a VM.

I can purchase full version of Win7 for $49 from ebay (as low as $10 but it's the "shady" stuff). That's your cost for a full and reinstallable version of an OS that is, frankly, better then Win8.1 anyway. Don't you just love the little tricks that Microsoft endlessly invent to stop you from using an OS that you own with any degree of freedom? If only they would apply such ingenuity to the OS itself.

Regarding LibreOffice. My switch to LibreOffice was relatively painless, but I recognize that the office suite is very personal for some people. If you are used to doing things a certain way, productivity can really suffer if you have to learn how to walk all over again. Only you can decide if the one-time pain is sufficiently rewarded by the long-term gain.

[ventrical]

I have been working with it for a while and it is really not bad. It is sort of like the unity desktop .. but it's the downtime that comes after a few updates (ya know .. "don't turn off your pc while it is updating") It is still like walking on egg shells and the mouse spinner will just spin.. just like in the old days of clogged up win XP boxes. .. anyways .. I'm sick of having to install antivirus /antimalware software. Good riddance to all that jabberwokky!! Ubuntu must be like a stone wall or something because malware is practically non-existant on it.


regards..

[craig10x]

@ ventrical: yeah, it must be like a stone wall :mrgreen:

I know many say, well it's because linux is a much smaller "target" then windows, so the hackers don't bother with it but that sounds like a lot of bs to me...since most servers these days run linux, i am sure they would love to crack into them...and they also know that more people are using linux and linux based devices these days (and even Chrome Os is based on linux too)...so, i am not buying that "small target" argument ;)
Must be something in the design that makes the difference...

Oh, by the way, i read that while its is true, microsoft will permit the hackers to upgrade for free as well, they won't be upgrading into a legit copy of windows 10, they will still be running an unlicensed version of windows 10 after they do the upgrade...of course, those with licensed copies of windows 7 and 8, get a licensed upgrade, naturally...

Also...just read this article...this doesn't sound like good news for linux...on new computers that have windows 10 installed, microsoft will no longer require that the manufacturer have a way of turning secure boot off as it was on computers that came with windows 8 installed....That sounds like a problem if you want to say, install ubuntu on one of those new desktops/laptops....
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/03/windows-10-to-make-the-secure-boot-alt-os-lock-out-a-reality/

Hope ubuntu can work around that, otherwise, when you buy a new computer (depending on the manufactuer's policy) you might get "stuck" with windows :rolleyes:

[ventrical]

@craig10x

As you know we have been working hard on test cases concerning those scenarios. MS is also expected to design machines that actually hardwire ELAM (early launch antimalware) firmware onto selected OEM products which will make it virtually impossible for Ubuntu to be installed on such systems.

I agree about the "bs" about Ubuntu being "much smaller" as a reason why hackers don't bother writing malware against it. 90% of this is due to the polkit which makes the ubuntus and other linuxes impervious to malware attacks. Even a wide open system (which I have run from time to time) is pretty well impervious to attack by virtue of the monolithic design of the kernels and then there is the repository structure .. so basically if any malware does enter a system it is by the user own hand for choosing an untrusted ppa and that cannot be considered malware or virus in the true sense of the concept.

I actually use Comodo AV for Linux to clean other hdds through a IDE/SATA USB bridge. It's actually awesome some of the garbage that one can find on old Windows XP drives that are not reported by even the best AV software on the market, yet are found by free AV stuff for Ubuntu systems.

Regards..

[craig10x]

By the way, i was just curious (since i haven't bought a new computer since secure boot came around)...if you buy a new computer, can you still wipe out windows and replace it with ubuntu, even if secure boot is enabled? I'm not talking "dual booting"...because i usually don't do that anyway....what i do (when i get a new computer) is make restore discs for the installed windows (just in case i need them for some reason) and then i set the computer's bios to boot off a dvd... and then boot off an ubuntu dvd iso and have it wipe out windows completely and replace it with ubuntu...as long as i could still do that, i'd be a happy camper ;)

[stalkingwolf]

this article talks about not being able to disable secure boot. http://tech.slashdot.org/story/15/03/20/2039251/oems-allowed-to-lock-secure-boot-in-windows-10-computers?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2FslashdotLinux+%28S lashdot%3A+Linux%29

[ventrical]

By the way, i was just curious (since i haven't bought a new computer since secure boot came around)...if you buy a new computer, can you still wipe out windows and replace it with ubuntu, even if secure boot is enabled? I'm not talking "dual booting"...because i usually don't do that anyway....what i do (when i get a new computer) is make restore discs for the installed windows (just in case i need them for some reason) and then i set the computer's bios to boot off a dvd... and then boot off an ubuntu dvd iso and have it wipe out windows completely and replace it with ubuntu...as long as i could still do that, i'd be a happy camper ;)

I went out and bought a new MoBo MSi-B75MA-P45 and it has all updated bells and whistles for cheap. In the BIOS it has a section called <Windows 8 Configuration< where secureboot can be enabled or disabled and secureboot mode settings for Standard and Custom ... so one has to do some homework when shopping for MoBos

[craig10x]

I guess we will need a new thread (after the windows 10 installed computers start arriving in the market place) regarding which manufacturers still provide the option of turning off secure boot...;)
Also, though i don't know what other linux distros will do, i'd imagine canonical would figure out some way around it so you could still get ubuntu installed...
In fact, (correct me if i am wrong) i thought ubuntu is set up to get installed properly even if secure boot is enabled on a computer? Isn't that so?

[ventrical]

I guess we will need a new thread (after the windows 10 installed computers start arriving in the market place) regarding which manufacturers still provide the option of turning off secure boot...;)
Also, though i don't know what other linux distros will do, i'd imagine canonical would figure out some way around it so you could still get ubuntu installed...
In fact, (correct me if i am wrong) i thought ubuntu is set up to get installed properly even if secure boot is enabled on a computer? Isn't that so?

I am commited to try this on a new 3TB drive that was provided by the community. I have been so busy but I may have time today. I may have to start another thread in UDV if I get around to it today.

Thanks for the reminder

[mc4man]

In fact, (correct me if i am wrong) i thought ubuntu is set up to get installed properly even if secure boot is enabled on a computer? Isn't that so?
secure boot enabled is not currently an issue for recent Ubuntu releases

[craig10x]

@mc4man: thanks...i thought that was the case...i think a friend of mine mentioned he had no problem installing ubuntu with secure boot enabled on his windows 8 laptop...he did have to turn off that other thing they have that makes windows boot up fast because what that really does is just put it into some kind of sleep or suspend type mode, so that could cause a problem in installing ubuntu...but that's a separate matter and is independent of the secure boot issue....from what i've read, canonical just has to buy the sign in key or whatever it is called for secure boot (which is what they do now i think) and they are good to go...

[ventrical]

@mc4man: thanks...i thought that was the case...i think a friend of mine mentioned he had no problem installing ubuntu with secure boot enabled on his windows 8 laptop...he did have to turn off that other thing they have that makes windows boot up fast because what that really does is just put it into some kind of sleep or suspend type mode, so that could cause a problem in installing ubuntu...but that's a separate matter and is independent of the secure boot issue....from what i've read, canonical just has to buy the sign in key or whatever it is called for secure boot (which is what they do now i think) and they are good to go...

You mean <fastboot

First: Thanks mac4man for saving me extra work today :)
Second: @craig10x I had enabled fastboot about an hour ago. I shut down the machine, (xubuntu 15.04) pulled the disk, connected another ssd drive (ubuntu 14.04/15.04) and it booted no problem.

edit: But with the MSI proprietary Fastboot option enabled it locked me out of BIOS and booted exclusivley into Windows with no other option, that is , until I shut down the system, removed the hard drive, rebooted into BIOS and disabled MSi Fastboot.

I think it was cariboo and a few others who said that windows 8,10 automatically go into suspend state , fastboot enabled or not.

It does not seem to be an issue swapping drives here while it is enabled.

Regards...

[craig10x]

@ventrical...right, "fast boot" ;)
Oh, good, thanks for doing that little "test"...i feel better now knowing when i do need to replace this laptop/desktop i use (a toshiba 17") i shouldn't have any problem wiping out windows and putting ubuntu on to replace it (after making restore discs, of course...lol) :D

[ventrical]

@ventrical...right, "fast boot" ;)
Oh, good, thanks for doing that little "test"...i feel better now knowing when i do need to replace this laptop/desktop i use (a toshiba 17") i shouldn't have any problem wiping out windows and putting ubuntu on to replace it (after making restore discs, of course...lol) :D

Ok.. wait.. I have to ammend my previous remarks. I have two options for fastboot.

1.Fastboot
2.MSi Fastboot

The MSi fastboot option will appear when <Windows 8 Configuration> is enabled. Once the MSi Fastboot option is selected it will not allow any entry into the BIOS of UEFI shell. You are virtually locked out until you physically remove the hdd. It will only boot exclusively into Windows 10. After removing hdd I was able to get my system back.

Whew!!

Regards..

[DuckHook]

...Once the MSi Fastboot option is selected it will not allow any entry into the BIOS of UEFI shell. You are virtually locked out until you physically remove the hdd. It will only boot exclusively into Windows 10.This is a MS tactic as old and sly as their cold black hearts. A straightjacket masquerading as something "good for you". You see, MS wants to "protect" you, don't you know? From all of those bogeymen who want to put bad stuff on your boot sector. All you have to do is forever give up control of it. Surrender your right to install anything else on it. After all, what on earth but Windows would you ever want to install anyway?

Those of us of a certain age know all too well the MS strategy of "embrace, extend, extinguish (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish)". This latest ploy is but another in a long line of such tactics. All for your own good, of course.

[craig10x]

@ventrical: I am a little confused, though...are you saying that, by default msi fast boot is enabled on these newer computers, and you can't make changes in bios? (ex: have it set to boot off a dvd instead of the drive first as i always set mine to for purpose of installing linux or running a live session of a distro). You don't have the option of changing it to the other "fast boot" that does allow you to enter bios and make changes?
Please clarify...Thanks ;)

Also, i was under the impression that "fast boot" could easily be turned off?

[pqwoerituytrueiwoq]

This is a MS tactic as old and sly as their cold black hearts. A straightjacket masquerading as something "good for you". You see, MS wants to "protect" you, don't you know? From all of those bogeymen who want to put bad stuff on your boot sector. All you have to do is forever give up control of it. Surrender your right to install anything else on it. After all, what on earth but Windows would you ever want to install anyway?

Those of us of a certain age know all too well the MS strategy of "embrace, extend, extinguish (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish)". This latest ploy is but another in a long line of such tactics. All for your own good, of course.

there is supposed to be a restart to uefi option in the shutdown menu to my understanding

[ventrical]

@ventrical: I am a little confused, though...are you saying that, by default msi fast boot is enabled on these newer computers, and you can't make changes in bios?

No. I am not saying that. MSi Fast Boot is proprietary to MSi (MicroStar International - nothing to do with MicroSoft)
I have discovered that there is a software driver/app that can allow you to turn off/on MSi Fast Boot through Microsoft Windows. So it is an option exclusive to Microsoft. My point is that once MSi Fast Boot is enabled you cannot install anything from the USB or DVD (as install Ubuntu). To be able to install Ubuntu you have to disable MSi Fast Boot from either software package or remove hdd and it will then allow you to enter BIOS and you can disable MSi Fast Boot there.

The other standard Fast Boot (which is included can also be enabled or disabled but not present the problems that MSi Fast Boot present. So If an OEM machine is shipped with Windows 8,10 or whatever and the proprietor has chosen to use MSi Fast Boot then an unsuspecting noob who is trying to Install Ubuntu onto his machine will be in for a very big surprise .. and especially if it is ssd hard wired then the noob would not be able to disable MSI Fast Boot unless he searched up on it... so .. what I am saying is that this MSI Fast Boot feature can emulate a bricked system to unsuspecting noobs and if you try to install Ubuntu in UEFI mode (probably what happened to Linus Torvalds and why he is nixing Ubunutu) you will get the 'cannot install to target' error which is a real pain.



(ex: have it set to boot off a dvd instead of the drive first as i always set mine to for purpose of installing linux or running a live session of a distro). You don't have the option of changing it to the other "fast boot" that does allow you to enter bios and make changes?
Please clarify...Thanks ;)

If you enable MSi Fast Boot option none of the other boot options become available.
If you enable the generic Fast Boot option then all other options are available.


Also, i was under the impression that "fast boot" could easily be turned off?

Yes .. as I now see this .. and MSi Fast Boot can be toggled from special app through Windows 8, but it sure causes a mess for an Ubuntu install if all the bells and whistles are not aligned correctly.

Regards..

[craig10x]

Thanks for the further clarifications...Here's another article about this:
http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/windows-10-may-lock-out-other-oses/

I would imagine ubuntu and other linux distros will have to get those things sorted out...otherwise, it would potentially lead to the end of "end users" installing alternate systems, like linux distros...
I know you mentioned you are testing windows 10...does it seem to be a big improvement over 7 and 8?

[monkeybrain20122]

Thanks for the further clarifications...Here's another article about this:
http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/windows-10-may-lock-out-other-oses/

I would imagine ubuntu and other linux distros will have to get those things sorted out...otherwise, it would potentially lead to the end of "end users" installing alternate systems, like linux distros...


It is probably not a problem (yet) for distros such as Ubuntu or Fedora as Canonical and Redhat could dish out $99 for the cert. But what about Debian, Arch, other community or smaller distros and self compile??

The PC is a general purpose machine, it is completely ridiculous that one company can lock it down like that. How long are we going to put up with abuse like this by eagerly supporting MicroSoft's market share??!! Seriously I am happy to see people using Mac nowadays because that represent more people breaking away from MS's ecosystem, at least Apple doesn't go out of its way to lock down generic hardware, you enter its walled garden by your own choice.

In the mean time maybe some publicity campigans towards popular OEMs are in order. Personally I will get my next laptop from Zareason or system 76, problem solved. But if you can't install Linux on a generic PC it will drastically hurt Linux's adoption.

Also I can see the PC repairing business taking a big hit if the hardware is locked down like that. Windows will probably be unrepairable in cases that it can be easily fixed now.

[craig10x]

Yes, that is true...i think ubuntu and fedora can afford the $99 fee for the certification ;) :mrgreen:

[ventrical]

Thanks for the further clarifications...Here's another article about this:
http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/windows-10-may-lock-out-other-oses/

I would imagine ubuntu and other linux distros will have to get those things sorted out...otherwise, it would potentially lead to the end of "end users" installing alternate systems, like linux distros...
I know you mentioned you are testing windows 10...does it seem to be a big improvement over 7 and 8?

It basically the same engine with a new face. I wrote an article a while back (have no idea what I did with it) called The Emperor's New Blinds. It was a critique on the release of Vista , ya know .. that headache thingy.. Windows 10 basically has all the same services and processes of Windows XP. It still takes like eons to update, restart and it has a DE experience somewhat similar to a gnome-session/unity hybrid. Yes .. it is snappy and sassy and maybe even sexy but as soon as you run Internet Explorer it shows it's true colours. I honestly wanted it to work.. and this on my fast machine with 16GB of DDR3 - but it is the same old windows. A couple days of surfing on it and you would be spending most of your time in the Action/Resolution center.


Why would I want to run Windows 10 which will crash on about 5 IE tabs when I can run about 40 uninterupted tabs on Firefox in Ubuntu?? Ubuntu gives me zero harassment in user_space. Thats the way it should be. It's getting to the point where I actually feel sorry for Microsoft and all of their end_user base. And for MS to require specially branded hardware to work with newer systems is just a plain outright shame.

Regards..

[ventrical]

Also I can see the PC repairing business taking a big hit if the hardware is locked down like that. Windows will probably be unrepairable in cases that it can be easily fixed now.

That's where this is all heading. But don't kid yourself. There will be thousands of trained hucksters who will be able to unlock bricked systems for a fee and not think twice about relieving your wallet of the little extra cash that may be residing in there. There is lots of room for new Micorsoft MVPs definitions to be created and laid up on the wall.

Regards..

[buzzingrobot]

It is probably not a problem (yet) for distros such as Ubuntu or Fedora as Canonical and Redhat could dish out $99 for the cert. But what about Debian, Arch, other community or smaller distros and self compile??



Canonical, Red Hat and some others paid the fee, jumped through the hoops, and got their keys a couple of years ago when Secure Boot rolled out for Windows 8. I dunno if we know if they will need to by new keys and jump through more hoops for Win10.

[monkeybrain20122]

The outcry from the community and tech press was able to get MS to provide an opt out last time (I would like to think) I hope that the same will happen with Win10. But in the long run MS's monopolistic hold on the industry must be broken, MS represents predatory capitalism at its worst. If I cannot convert people to Linux I will even suggest them to switch to Mac.

[buzzingrobot]

The outcry from the community and tech press was able to get MS to provide an opt out last time...

Well, I don't think the FOSS community or the FOSS tech press (such as it is, which isn't much) had much, if any, serious influence on Microsoft's decisions. The FOSS community is not a Microsoft market. They have no reason to be influenced by it.

There are a number of large players who do not use Windows on, at least, a portion of their installations. They probably don't want to to be forced into moving to Windows next time they need to buy new hardware. We'll see if they have enough market influence to sustain production of PC's that include the option to disable Secure Boot.

This current ruckus is entirely based on a couple of slides apparently used by someone at a presentation. (Someone correct me if that's wrong.) I'd like to know, at least, what was said by the speaker when those slides were on screen.

The notion of secure boot (lower case) makes sense. Having a dominant corporation like Microsoft control the single implementation of it, and effectively controlling who can and cannot get permission boot their OS on standard PC hardwware, is the wrong way to go.

(Not a lawyer and all that, but... I don't think Win8's approach to Secure Boot is restraint of trade. MS can argue that all it did was publish standards that hardware must meet before it could run Win8. That's certainly not at all unheard of. Competitive OS's can run on that hardware, either by getting a key or by requiring users to disable Secure Boot. But, leveraging vendors into removing the option to disable Secure Boot *and* manipulating the Secure Boot guideliness for Win10 to effectively curtail the manufacture and sale of hardware that competitive products could boot on is, I think, in combination, restraint of trade.)

[ventrical]

Go ahead and try (like I did ) to use the 'stow and go' feature/tool in Windows 10 . It requires a 16GB USB hdd flash disk. It is suppossed to make a bootable USB of the currently installed OS and allow you to boot it on most any PC that is circa 2006 onwards. What happens is that it will not work with just any generic USB. It requires a Microsoft Approved USB that had an embedded code preinstalled on it at the factory.

[xubu2]

Here's another great example of their "friendliness": http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/03/windows-10-to-make-the-secure-boot-alt-os-lock-out-a-reality/

Little edit: I can't wait for windows 11 :shock:

Microsoft offices: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UkoNCni5KA
.

[craig10x]

Of course, you do realize that what microsoft is saying is that although manufacturers are required to SHIP the computer with Secure Boot enabled, they are no longer REQUIRING the manufacturer to provide a switch to turn it off...which means it is UP TO THE MANUFACTURER, so let's hope the manufacturer's of the desktops and laptops show proper consideration for the customers and provide the off switch option.....the public needs to put pressure on the manufacturers...

[pqwoerituytrueiwoq]

for the most part i doubt any manufacture would not give end users a off switch, just to avoid having products returned cause they can't install windows 7 or windows xp (i really hope no one is still doing XP installs outside of virtualization)
i thought with windows 8 on tablets they required it to NOT have a off switch

[user1397]

...hmmm. Interesting perspective. I have the opposite experience. Transferring files between VM and host is a breeze. In fact, I don't need to transfer at all since Vbox allows me to define any host directory as shared. But with respect to MSOffice, you are quite right; MSOffice does not run in WINE. If you can't make the transition to LibreOffice, you are stuck either rebooting or VMing.

VMs have come a long way, especially on modern halfway-decent HW. Except for games, I find little lag running even demanding everyday Windows apps in a VM. True, yea I don't know much about sharing files from the guest to the host OS, I guess I should've done more research into that. I like libreoffice and google docs, it's just that for my school/work I don't want to entertain the possibility that a simple formatting error is going to screw me out of a grade or some money.


I can purchase full version of Win7 for $49 from ebay (as low as $10 but it's the "shady" stuff). That's your cost for a full and reinstallable version of an OS that is, frankly, better then Win8.1 anyway. Don't you just love the little tricks that Microsoft endlessly invent to stop you from using an OS that you own with any degree of freedom? If only they would apply such ingenuity to the OS itself. i actually almost forgot, I have a copy of Windows 7 but it is in .iso format since I don't have a an optical drive on this laptop. Could I install that somehow in virtualbox inside Ubuntu for example?



EDIT***: Wow I'm dumb :) Forgot you can just easily add the windows .iso to virtualbox in the virtual cd drive for the guest OS. Now I gotta figure out how to easily share files between guest and host and I might just ditch windows 8 :P

[MasterNetra]

True, yea I don't know much about sharing files from the guest to the host OS, I guess I should've done more research into that. I like libreoffice and google docs, it's just that for my school/work I don't want to entertain the possibility that a simple formatting error is going to screw me out of a grade or some money.

i actually almost forgot, I have a copy of Windows 7 but it is in .iso format since I don't have a an optical drive on this laptop. Could I install that somehow in virtualbox inside Ubuntu for example?



EDIT***: Wow I'm dumb :) Forgot you can just easily add the windows .iso to virtualbox in the virtual cd drive for the guest OS. Now I gotta figure out how to easily share files between guest and host and I might just ditch windows 8 :P

If you can use USB drives you could just format a UBS drive to NTFS. check the boot flag (I think), and just unzip the iso to the top in the USB Drive and you should be able to boot and install it as well.

I suspect we'll at least still be able to count on HP, maybe dell to continue to allow users to disable secure boot. If not, well there is system76

[DuckHook]

... Now I gotta figure out how to easily share files between guest and host...First, you must have VBox Extension Pack installed. Then in VBox Manager: Settings>Shared Folders>Add Folder (Folder icon on right margin)>fill in the Folder Path, Folder Name and click the option boxes you want. Rinse and repeat for all folders you want to share.

[user1397]

First, you must have VBox Extension Pack installed. Then in VBox Manager: Settings>Shared Folders>Add Folder (Folder icon on right margin)>fill in the Folder Path, Folder Name and click the option boxes you want. Rinse and repeat for all folders you want to share.
So yes I found a guide which told me to do what you just said basically, and I was able to configure it, but I noticed there were a couple of problems. For example, every time I would restart the vm, in the guest OS the shared folder showed up twice in my computer, which was really odd (like one was drive letter x and the other was E or something). That wasn't so much a problem by itself, but then when I tried to install microsoft office by placing the exe in the shared folder there was a weird error saying the specified path could not be found. I copied the whole office installation files to that shared folder, and on the host OS I can double click the exe and it works fine, but I still get that error on the guest OS. Hmm..

[DuckHook]

The VBox implementation of a shared folder requires a translation layer to resolve the difference between Linux native file format, which is a lot more sophisticated than Windows, and the native Windows format, especially if it is FAT-based. Even NTFS has no native understanding of permissions. Therefore, shared folders are great for relatively static stuff like data, but I would not install apps to one. Why do you need to do so anyway? Linux cannot run MSOffice.

[user1397]

The VBox implementation of a shared folder requires a translation layer to resolve the difference between Linux native file format, which is a lot more sophisticated than Windows, and the native Windows format, especially if it is FAT-based. Even NTFS has no native understanding of permissions. Therefore, shared folders are great for relatively static stuff like data, but I would not install apps to one. Why do you need to do so anyway? Linux cannot run MSOffice.
I was actually trying to install windows 7 inside windows 8. I had it all configured and I set up a shared folder. I also had a copy of MS Office and I tried to move it to the shared folder so that I could run the setup program inside windows 7 in virtualbox, but it wouldn't work.

Either way, I've actually made some adjustments with my setup and decided to try to run ubuntu as my main OS again for the time being. I am still dual booting with windows but I don't think I'll need to boot into it very often. It just so happens that this particular semester of classes I don't need MS Office at all, but I guess I'll see what happens in the near future.

[DuckHook]

I was actually trying to install windows 7 inside windows 8.If you are hosting Win on Win, then I have no knowledge and can't help you. Simply assumed that you asking for advice on a Linux forum meant you were running it on Linux. Have never run a VM on a Win host. You would be better asking for advice in a Windows forum.

[user1397]

If you are hosting Win on Win, then I have no knowledge and can't help you. Simply assumed that you asking for advice on a Linux forum meant you were running it on Linux. Have never run a VM on a Win host. You would be better asking for advice in a Windows forum.
No worries, I'm just a bit complicated sometimes :) I only had windows 8 during the time when I tried to install win7 in virtualbox, but now I've reinstalled ubuntu alongside windows 8 (dual booting) and now I've come to the conclusion that I'll probably boot into windows occasionally while being in ubuntu all of the time.

[mastablasta]

looks like win 8 is also free of cost already in certain cases - see Windows 8 BLING edition.

so it would make sense to give out 10 for free as well.

[Gustaf_Alhll]

Interpret this however you want, but I think Microsoft is trying to trick us.

I've always been sceptical with companies that focuses only on money (*Ahem* Microsoft). They always have tricks to earn money in one or another way.
I shouldn't be bothered, since I'm only using Linux, but I'd say you should be careful if you have Windows. Think twice before you do something.
A theory I have is that they are just lying to us. They're saying that just to wake up attention that leads to people buying the OS once it's released. A crazy theory, but that's what I think they're doing.
Also, looking back to the .NET cross-platform announcment, that never happened. They're probably doing it again.

I know, I'm VERY sceptical. But that's how I am on the internet/around companies.

[craig10x]

I don't think they are trying to trick us, they have a lot of very good reasons (marketing wise) to get like everybody to switch to windows 10 and that's the incentive for them to offer it free to all (if you switch over during the first year)...I've read quite a few articles as to their reasoning behind it and concluded that it's just a good marketing decision for them and also makes things easier for them in the long run (not having to maintain older versions, etc)...And also don't forget that they are working on a "convergence" thing (similar to what canonical is doing with ubuntu) to have windows run on various devices...another important reason for them to get everyone "on board" with 10...

[Tar_Ni]

I've always been sceptical with companies that focuses only on money (*Ahem* Microsoft). They always have tricks to earn money in one or another way.
I shouldn't be bothered, since I'm only using Linux, but I'd say you should be careful if you have Windows. Think twice before you do something.
A theory I have is that they are just lying to us. They're saying that just to wake up attention that leads to people buying the OS once it's released. A crazy theory, but that's what I think they're doing.

I am not aware of any tech giants that doesn't focuses on money. You should be skeptical of all of them.

Microsoft under Nadella is not Microsoft under Ballmer. What we are seeing here is a shift towards a more Google-like business model. Mobile first, Cloud first. That Windows 8.1 is given away for free to manifacturers of tablets and smartphones, or that a free upgrade of Windows 10 is offered to users, it's a bid that MS can afford. They will get the money another way, from the use of their paid-services like MS Office, Office 365, Bing ads, Skype, SkyDrive, Enterprise licenses and so on. They want you on their platform and well within their ecosystem.

Microsoft has diversified it's source of revenues, which is why they can afford to lure users into their ecosystem and compete effectively with Google and Apple.

[buzzingrobot]

Microsoft's traditional market -- desktop computing -- is shrinking proportionately as more and more people do more and more of their computing on phones and tablets. There are many people who have bought their last PC, and many others who will never buy a PC. You won't do enterprise computing on a phone, of course. But, the more desktop computing shrinks as a percentage of the total computing market, the more Microsoft's influence and opportunities for revenue and growth shrink.

So, they need to keep their enterprise customers on board while simultaneously finding a way into the small device market. (Win8 turned off enterprise consumers, hence the effort to make Win10 something that might convince them to leave Win7. Win7 won't last forever. If MS doesn't offer them a way off it, someone else will.)

As for the "trick"? I don't see one. Corporations and their managers are obligated to maximize profit. We shouldn't be surprised when that's exactly what they do.

[monkeybrain20122]

Microsoft's traditional market -- desktop computing -- is shrinking proportionately as more and more people do more and more of their computing on phones and tablets. There are many people who have bought their last PC, and many others who will never buy a PC. You won't do enterprise computing on a phone, of course. But, the more desktop computing shrinks as a percentage of the total computing market, the more Microsoft's influence and opportunities for revenue and growth shrink.
.

I have been hearing the demise of laptops/desktops for a while and I am not sure that I would believe the hype. The mobile market is growing faster than the PC market no doubt, but it is not clear that it does so at the expense of PCs except for low specs netbooks,--which are kind of borderline for 'desktop computing'. It could be that mobile just has a broader market for people who otherwise wouldn't have a computer at all (i.e there are people who would own a phone without a desktop or a laptop, but it is not the same as saying that they have switched from the later, they probably never own a computer, but they would still need a phone. e.g my mother)

Other than facebooking, messaging, light surfing and some light games there isn't much "computing" (???) you can do on a phone or a tablet. You can't create a document, and reading one is painful enough on a small screen. I don't know many people who would enjoy watching a full movie on a tablet let alone a phone, even many causal users watch videos other than shorts on Youtube. These platforms are a lot more locked down and you need an app to do pretty much anything and often in more complicated and restricted ways than on a PC. I have a few friends who went for the tablet fad and then realised that these are over priced and rather limited. They went back to the laptop and got something a lot more usable with a fraction of the price (you can get very good deals on refurbished one) These are by no means geeks or 'enterprise users', just basic home users.

I would agree that desktop computers, as in towers, are rare outside offices. I know only very few people who actually have one, these are the kind of people who also have landline phones and TVs. Most of my friends are single renters who move a lot, the laptop is optimal.

[Ko_Char]

You can't create a document, and reading one is painful enough on a small screen.

May be off-topic.
You can create a document on phone. I write my docs on my phone. Just swipe, fast and easy.
There are also good dictation software. You don't even need to swipe.

[buzzingrobot]

Other than facebooking, messaging, light surfing and some light games there isn't much "computing" (???) you can do on a phone or a tablet.

I think that's pretty much all the computing that very many people want to do. Traditionally, the "personal" use of personal computers has been, overwhelmingly, as a communications tool. Doing that on a tool you can carry with you and use any time, any place, is an order of magnitude more useful and appealing than being tied to a desk or lugging a laptop around.


You can't create a document, and reading one is painful enough on a small screen. I don't know many people who would enjoy watching a full movie on a tablet let alone a phone, even many causal users watch videos other than shorts on Youtube.

Sure you can. I do it all the time. E.g., I often read and post *here* with a tablet. Granted, no one is going to write a 60-page report on a phone. But, how many people actually write lengthy reports as part of their *personal* behavior? That kind of activity is, by and large, relegated to the office, to do something we're paid to do by our employer. And that makes it *business* computing, not *personal* computing.

For the kind of writing most people do most often -- email, social media, etc. -- phones and tablets are just fine, and where most of those activities occur.

As for videos... I have a desktop, a laptop, a tablet, and a phone. I watch videos (clips, TV, movies) on the tablet sitting lazing on the couch. Not about to sit at the desk for that. When I travel, the phone and tablet go with me; the phone for calls and mail, the tablet replacing the laptop.)

[monkeybrain20122]

As for videos... I have a desktop, a laptop, a tablet, and a phone. I watch videos (clips, TV, movies) on the tablet sitting lazing on the couch. Not about to sit at the desk for that. When I travel, the phone and tablet go with me; the phone for calls and mail, the tablet replacing the laptop.)

Well you do have a laptop (and a desktop). So you just got mobile in addition to desktop computing, not replacing it. This is the case with most people who actually owned computers before mobile I think.

[buzzingrobot]

Well you do have a laptop (and a desktop). So you just got mobile in addition to desktop computing, not replacing it. This is the case with most people who actually owned computers before mobile I think.

That's not been my experience. A number of people I know no longer use their PC's, whether that's a desktop or a laptop. They may still own them, but they aren't in the market to buy new replacements. They just don't do anything that requires being confined to a desktop a laptop. I think that's also the same for many, many people.

Phones and tablets certainly aren't fads. They're a fundamental improvement in the convenience and ubiquity of personal computing. Why go out of your way to sit at a desk to do something you can do on a little handheld device you carry with you?

(My laptop has been sitting unused for quite some time. There is, literally, nothing I do on the desktop that I don't also do on the tablet. The balance actually favors the tablet.)

[monkeybrain20122]

That's not been my experience. A number of people I know no longer use their PC's, whether that's a desktop or a laptop. They may still own them, but they aren't in the market to buy new replacements. They just don't do anything that requires being confined to a desktop a laptop. I think that's also the same for many, many people.


I would argue that there is a trade off between mobility and confinement. You may not be confined to your desk but you are confined in other ways. I know many Windows people who are into activities that, let's say, are not allowed on this forum. These are not exactly basic users but pretty close to the lowest common denominator. You can't do these things with mobile, not without a lot of work anyway if possible at all. So I think in most cases it is not an either/or situation. Different tools for different occasions.

I don't intend to generalise with my own experience, but just saying that with limited budget I certainly would not trade in my full Ubuntu laptop for a tablet for roughly the same price but much much much more limited in capability. If I have to lug my laptop around then so be it.

[buzzingrobot]

Whatever any single individual may do, the numbers indicate that most people are already using phones/tablets for most of their *personal* computing. I don't think there's a way to argue that away, or that it isn't a permanent change.

[monkeybrain20122]

From what I gather desktop computing is still growing just not as fast, i.e the growth rate of growth is negative as oppose to negative growth rate. Many pundits haven't studied calculus apparently and have difficulties understanding the difference between first and second derivatives :) I think mobile represents a different market, there are some overlaps (e.g netbooks) but they are not the same.

One may argue that desktop computing may not be as profitable for the vendors but that is a different matter altogether. Profit margins are determined by other factors besides market demands. There may be other considerations as well. Devices are practically completely locked down,-- anti-user,-- it would be an incentive for big vendors who push DRM to promote the platform. "Trusted computing" doesn't go very far on desktops and laptops but it is taken for granted on mobile.

[Tar_Ni]

Microsoft's traditional market -- desktop computing -- is shrinking proportionately as more and more people do more and more of their computing on phones and tablets. There are many people who have bought their last PC, and many others who will never buy a PC. You won't do enterprise computing on a phone, of course. But, the more desktop computing shrinks as a percentage of the total computing market, the more Microsoft's influence and opportunities for revenue and growth shrink.

Microsoft jumped too late in the mobile bandwaggon. When they realized their mistake their were unprepared, Google-Android and Appel-iOs were already dominating the market. I think they are slowly but surely climbing the ladder, they still have a niche market at this point but have great hopes that this could improve significantly with Windows 10. Nadella seems to me a very competent CEO and (IMO) the best guy the Redmond firm could have selected under the circumstances.

Still, Microsoft is not about to abandon desktop computing. Neither is Google or Apple. There is still very much a need for 10'' inch+ screens and a keyboard among users which is why this will remain popular. Personally, I have a 8'' Android tablet and couldn't imagine myself spending all my computing time on this. My 15'' inch laptop is non-negotiable.

What we will see more and more is the introduction of next gens laptops, the ''hybrids'' kind of like Surface Pro, Lenovo Yoga 3, Acer Switch 10 or Chromebooks-style sorts of devices. This is a market that Microsoft will fight tooth and nail not to loose.

[Linuxratty]

By the way, i was just curious (since i haven't bought a new computer since secure boot came around)...if you buy a new computer, can you still wipe out windows and replace it with ubuntu, even if secure boot is enabled? and then boot off an ubuntu dvd iso and have it wipe out windows completely and replace it with ubuntu...as long as i could still do that, i'd be a happy camper ;)
This is what friends and I want to know. After using 'nix for 11 years,well I have no plans to use Windows.
Right now i have a refurbished Dell that had W7 on it,so I dodged the bullet..Eventually I won't be able to.
I suspect I'll have to go to Zareason or System76 in the future.

[buzzingrobot]

Ubuntu can be installed when Secure Boot is enabled and it can be installed when Secure Boot is disabled.

[GakuWai]

I don't care at all about MS, have ditched it long time ago however that doesn't mean I don't use it when I need to do something which can't be done on Linux. Open Source FTW (:

[user1397]

This is what friends and I want to know. After using 'nix for 11 years,well I have no plans to use Windows.
Right now i have a refurbished Dell that had W7 on it,so I dodged the bullet..Eventually I won't be able to.
I suspect I'll have to go to Zareason or System76 in the future.Just as buzzingrobot said, it can be done either way usually. On my particular computer, I had to disable secure boot in the BIOS settings first I'm pretty sure. I do remember on another windows 8 computer I had before that when I tried to install ubuntu it worked fine but when I tried to install kubuntu something got messed up, can't remember exactly what. I wondered if there was something so different in the ubuntu iso compared to the kubuntu iso that the installation would be affected that much.

There's definitely some distros where it's a little harder to install with secure boot (as far as I can remember)...ubuntu seems to be the easiest by far.

[Dragonbite]

Just as buzzingrobot said, it can be done either way usually. On my particular computer, I had to disable secure boot in the BIOS settings first I'm pretty sure. I do remember on another windows 8 computer I had before that when I tried to install ubuntu it worked fine but when I tried to install kubuntu something got messed up, can't remember exactly what. I wondered if there was something so different in the ubuntu iso compared to the kubuntu iso that the installation would be affected that much.

There's definitely some distros where it's a little harder to install with secure boot (as far as I can remember)...ubuntu seems to be the easiest by far.

If Ubuntu Core can have the signatures to run with secure boot, then that would be great because you can start with that and add any DE, applications or packages on top, rather than having to supply an key for each one individually.

Since Fedora, and I think openSUSE, are able to boot up and they have DVD versions which allows you to select the desktop environments and programs during installation, I would hope Ubuntu could follow suit.

[Linuxratty]

Just as buzzingrobot said, it can be done either way usually. On my particular computer, I had to disable secure boot in the BIOS settings first I'm pretty sure. I do remember on another windows 8 computer I had before that when I tried to install ubuntu it worked fine but when I tried to install kubuntu something got messed up, can't remember exactly what. I wondered if there was something so different in the ubuntu iso compared to the kubuntu iso that the installation would be affected that much.

There's definitely some distros where it's a little harder to install with secure boot (as far as I can remember)...ubuntu seems to be the easiest by far.

Yeah, I read that. So I gather if I went to a super easy version of Arch, I might have problems.

[monkeybrain20122]

Yeah, I read that. So I gather if I went to a super easy version of Arch, I might have problems.

Speaking of which has anyone tried Manjaro Linux with SB enabled?

As I said this state of affairs is unacceptable. If they must impose SB on us MS should not be the one issuing certs. It tries to wash its hand by passing the bucks to the OEMs but the executives in Redmond know what their SB requirement + optional off switch at OEM's discretions would entail. It is just wrong on principle that we have to rely on MS's continued good will to sign our certs.The big distros will likely be able to install if have to jump through a few more hoops, but it is no reason for complacency. If the Linux ecology get marginalised it will end up hurting us all. Just as with Win8 we cannot take this laying down. We have to make more noises before locked down becomes irreversible.

[buzzingrobot]

We have to make more noises before locked down becomes irreversible.

If there's to be useful pushback, it will need to come from corporations and organizations that depend on *enterprise* Linux and the corporations who provide it (Red Hat, Suse, Canonical, for example.) They stand to lose the most.

If I was running Microsoft (hah!), though, I'd try to do an end run and just open up the process and the specs involved in getting a Secure Boot key as much as possible. I'd shine a lot of light on it and make it as easy as possible to build a certifiable product bootable on Win10 hardware.

[user1397]

If Ubuntu Core can have the signatures to run with secure boot, then that would be great because you can start with that and add any DE, applications or packages on top, rather than having to supply an key for each one individually.

Since Fedora, and I think openSUSE, are able to boot up and they have DVD versions which allows you to select the desktop environments and programs during installation, I would hope Ubuntu could follow suit.Indeed, would be nice. I actually don't understand how this hasn't been the norm for a long time. Has anyone ever tried to set up a project that accomplishes exactly this? It could be seen as another "flavor" of ubuntu but instead of having one default DE it would run ubuntu-core with the signed secure boot keys and then just provide options for the different DEs.


Yeah, I read that. So I gather if I went to a super easy version of Arch, I might have problems.
Yup, probably. I definitely don't agree with secure boot in any way, but at least it doesn't seem to be as big a problem as people originally thought. Then again we don't know what the future holds...

[buzzingrobot]

Fedora did not produce an all-in-one DVD for release 21 and, so far, have not produced one for release 22, which is in development. They do provide a netinstall iso that provides all those options.

OpenSuse's DVD is 4.5 gigs, which poses a problem for many people with limited or metered internet access.

Ubuntu's mini.iso/netinstall image does not use the standard Ubuntu installer, while Fedora's netinstall image does use the standard Fedora installer. So, in Fedora, you pick your installation options up front, before the install process begins. In Ubuntu's mini image, you're given a choice of software groups late in the process.

(Both Canonical and Fedora have acquired keys for Microsoft's proprietary secure boot implementation.)

[Don_Goffe]

These free upgrades for pirated copies will still be considered non-genuine Windows 10's so wouldn't that deter those who would much rather get a 'cracked' version that conceals the non-genuine label?

[MasterNetra]

This is what friends and I want to know. After using 'nix for 11 years,well I have no plans to use Windows.
Right now i have a refurbished Dell that had W7 on it,so I dodged the bullet..Eventually I won't be able to.
I suspect I'll have to go to Zareason or System76 in the future.

The Answer is yes to both you and the person you quoted. Secure boot can be disabled from BIOS with windows 8, MS required via their agreements dealing with Win 8 that secure boot should be made disablable. Though I've heard they will drop that requirement with windows 10. It'll be up to computer companies if they still want to provide a option in bios to disable it. Though even if a manufacture decides to make it permanent, Ubuntu and Fedora can still be installed and can still replace it.

[Dragonbite]

Maybe the idea of Windows 10 for pirates is slightly off...

“We have always been committed to ensuring that customers have the best Windows experience possible,” a Microsoft statement notes. “With Windows 10, although non-Genuine PCs may be able to upgrade to Windows 10, the upgrade will not change the genuine state of the license. Non-Genuine Windows is not published by Microsoft. It is not properly licensed, or supported by Microsoft or a trusted partner. If a device was considered non-genuine or mis-licensed prior to the upgrade, that device will continue to be considered non-genuine or mis-licensed after the upgrade.”(underline by me)

https://www.thurrott.com/windows/windows-10/2190/sorry-microsoft-is-not-giving-free-windows-10-to-pirates

[kurt18947]

The Answer is yes to both you and the person you quoted. Secure boot can be disabled from BIOS with windows 8, MS required via their agreements dealing with Win 8 that secure boot should be made disablable. Though I've heard they will drop that requirement with windows 10. It'll be up to computer companies if they still want to provide a option in bios to disable it. Though even if a manufacture decides to make it permanent, Ubuntu and Fedora can still be installed and can still replace it.

As long as keys remain readily available. It'll be interesting to see if manufacturers continue to permit disabling secure boot once they're not required to. And if Microsoft 'rewards' manufacturers that make it difficult or impossible to install alternative O.S.s. on their hardware. Could this birth a movement to produce alternative BIOSs as are available for Thinkpads?

[monkeybrain20122]

As long as keys remain readily available. It'll be interesting to see if manufacturers continue to permit disabling secure boot once they're not required to. And if Microsoft 'rewards' manufacturers that make it difficult or impossible to install alternative O.S.s. on their hardware. Could this birth a movement to produce alternative BIOSs as are available for Thinkpads?

People would be short sighted if they don't react just because Canonical/Redhat can still buy the key. This is like boiling the frog slowly, the lock down will not happen all at once but there will be increasingly more hoops to jump through and before you know it you would have to be a hacker to install an alternative OS on generic hardware. The community must act when there is still time. That some big distros can buy the key (for now) is not a reason to stay silent. If the Linux ecosystem gets hurt, it will affect us all whatever distros you use. Why should MS have the power to dictate what can install anyway? Also if an inexperienced user cannot experiment by easily booting off a live usb or installing, the Linux user base will take a beating, and that will further marginalise Linux as a viable desktop OS (maybe some Debian users won't care about new users or user base, but this is the UF), so the pros have workarounds or can build their own systems,--if they have too much time,-- is not a reason to take this lightly (not to mention many younger people don't even use towers, building a laptop is a lot harder if not impossible)

It is somewhat disturbing to see the "the sky is not falling" comments here. Maybe not yet, but when it is it will be too late.

[buzzingrobot]

The community must act when there is still time. That some big distros can buy the key (for now) is not a reason to stay silent.

I'm very skeptical the 'community' can do anything since it it has little economic influence. Large corporations and institutions that rely on or require machines that can run Linux or one of the BSD's have an economic reason to make an effort to see that the hardware they want remains available. That effort might include legal action or it might simply be to contract with hardware vendors to assure their access to that hardware.(This is much as Microsoft is doing: Using market clout to get vendors to make hardware per their specifications.)

The legal action could, potentially, impact the consumer PC market. But, if Google or IBM contract with Lenovo or someone else in China to supply thousands of Linux-capable machines, that doesn't necessarily translate into some of those machines finding their way into retail channels.

I really have no idea how all this will play out and, in fact, remain a bit skeptical about the original report because it doesn't seem to have been confirmed or followed up by any other FOSS/Linux media outlet (No surprise, there; almost all of them are atrociously awful: Clickbait factories or agenda-driven fanboy ravings.)

If it comes to it, we may be able to special order Linux-capable hardware from limited suppliers and at a premium price.

(As far as I recall, keys cost $99. Any distribution that can't come up with that probably ought to disband.)

[monkeybrain20122]

I'm very skeptical the 'community' can do anything since it it has little economic influence. Large corporations and institutions that rely on or require machines that can run Linux or one of the BSD's have an economic reason to make an effort to see that the hardware they want remains available. That effort might include legal action or it might simply be to contract with hardware vendors to assure their access to that hardware.(This is much as Microsoft is doing: Using market clout to get vendors to make hardware per their specifications.)..


Then why did MS mandate OEMS to put in an off switch with Win8? As far as I could recall, that didn't happen right the way, but only after a lot of outcry form the community, the tech press, the FSF and threats of lawsuits over a few months. You may find some reasons to dismiss these actions as not what really caused the off switch to be mandated. But I am all ears if there is an alternative theory other than MS's good intention, it may suggest a more effective cause of action.

Even though Linux may have a small market share, but if they lock down the hardware like this it won't only affect Linux users. I imagine a few Windows users would want to install Win7. The computer service industry will be screwed if they can't boot a rescue CD. Many Windows users will be pissed off if they realise that their computers are basically not fixable. It will be bad for many people besides Linux users.

We don't know if actions are useless unless we try, the only 100% predictably useless thing to do would be to do nothing and wait for the chips fall, --and less than useless would be to try to argue against any action as futile because of our supposedly low market share.

[buzzingrobot]

Then why did MS mandate OEMS to put in an off switch with Win8? I don't think making noises would be useless, most useless thing to do would be to do nothing and wait for the chips fall.

Yes, but noise is a bit like those petitions people periodically push out, trying to lobby XYZ vendor to port something to Linux. Unless OEM's believe there is money to be made by making machines that can't run Windows, they will only make machines that run nothing else but Windows rather than risk going broke. Should they risk knowable, bankable, sales into the Windows market in order to test the comparatively minuscule Linux market?

I don't think vendors today believe they can make a profit selling non-Windows capable hardware. Even the (very small) Linux vendors, like System76, repurpose hardware designed for the Windows market.

While Linux is capable of running on non-PC hardware, it's clearly dominated by the same, single, hardware architecture designed years ago to support Windows. At heart, that's why this apparent decision by Microsoft is so threatening, because no other commercially viable consumer-level architecture exists to provide an option for consumers who want to run Linux. (Linux can run on Mac systems, which use common Intel-style parts but no BIOS, but I know first-hand it's often painful.)

[monkeybrain20122]

I have edited my post. As I said it won't only affect Linux users and the only provably useless thing to do would be to do nothing.

And you have not answered my question why MS mandated the OEMs to put in an off switch for Win8 if noises are useless. What are the alternative explanations?

[Dragonbite]

Then why did MS mandate OEMS to put in an off switch with Win8? As far as I could recall, that didn't happen right the way, but only after a lot of outcry form the community, the tech press, the FSF and threats of lawsuits over a few months. You may find some reasons to dismiss these actions as not what really caused the off switch to be mandated. But I am all ears if there is an alternative theory other than MS's good intention, it may suggest a more effective cause of action.

Even though Linux may have a small market share, but if they lock down the hardware like this it won't only affect Linux users. I imagine a few Windows users would want to install Win7. The computer service industry will be screwed if they can't boot a rescue CD. Many Windows users will be pissed off if they realise that their computers are basically not fixable. It will be bad for many people besides Linux users.

We don't know if actions are useless unless we try, the only 100% predictably useless thing to do would be to do nothing and wait for the chips fall, --and less than useless would be to try to argue against any action as futile because of our supposedly low market share.

The Linux community isn't big or influential enough to stop this.

Microsoft back-tracked before because Enterprises did not want to go to Windows 8 then (and still don't). Those are big bugs they risked losing, so a compromise was made.

The outcry from the community was influential because it wasn't just the (5%) Linux community either... Windows users were complaining and there was that pesky threat of a lawsuit by FSF...

But Linux-only community alone doesn't have the influence enough.

But now Microsoft is changing some, and competition is willing to entice any customers that start looking elsewhere.

Hit them in the wallet is the only way a company is going to listen.

[monkeybrain20122]

The Linux community isn't big or influential enough to stop this.

Microsoft back-tracked before because Enterprises did not want to go to Windows 8 then (and still don't). Those are big bugs they risked losing, so a compromise was made.

The outcry from the community was influential because it wasn't just the (5%) Linux community either... Windows users were complaining and there was that pesky threat of a lawsuit by FSF...

But Linux-only community alone doesn't have the influence enough.

But now Microsoft is changing some, and competition is willing to entice any customers that start looking elsewhere.

Hit them in the wallet is the only way a company is going to listen.

No, not linux users only. But locking down hardware is bad for many people. If laptop cannot be repaired then it will hit Windows users too. So any publicity campaign has to bring more people on side than just Linux users. That I think most would agree.

[leclerc65]

No thanks, MS.
I bought an Asus desktop with 8.0 pre-installed.
I added a 128G SSD, carved out a portion (15G), installed Ubuntu 12.04 on it. At the end of the installation my head was so heated up I did not remember a thing.:p - that UEFI scrap.
Now I don't dare to touch both the Windows 8.0 and the Ubuntu 12.04 for fear that everything is going to crumble. Instead I install other (newer) distros on the left over portion of the SSD,
boot up in Ubuntu 12.04 then issue the command 'sudo update-grub'...
Call me chicken if you like, but at 72+, that's all I can manage.

[john387]

HA....even pirated copies!

[craig10x]

Yes, even pirated copies but they will stay pirated (in other words, the pirated copies don't get upgraded to legit copies they just become pirated copies of windows 10)...

[user_of_gnomes]

Yes, even pirated copies but they will stay pirated (in other words, the pirated copies don't get upgraded to legit copies they just become pirated copies of windows 10)...

How is that going to work?

[craig10x]

It will permit the upgrading of the pirated versions, but it won't add a legit license key to it...where as if you have a legit copy of windows 7 or 8 it will get a newer license key assigned to it...something like that ;)

[monkeybrain20122]

It will permit the upgrading of the pirated versions, but it won't add a legit license key to it...where as if you have a legit copy of windows 7 or 8 it will get a newer license key assigned to it...something like that ;)

So they will have all those pirates in their database.;)