another one of microsoft's anti competitive behaviors

[mahyar]

the video pretty much explains it all, microsoft wants to further monopolize the pc space

either they are afraid of linux's progress in the past few years or they gain something else from it 

nonetheless it just further proves that microsoft never really abandoned the E.E.E protocol  

[emosun]

This is a major issue for anyone who needs to natively boot a different os on a portable computer with no knowledge of other computer brands or methods in which to do so.

[Imbadatnames]

11 minutes ago, emosun said:

This is a major issue for anyone who needs to natively boot a different os on a portable computer with no knowledge of other computer brands or methods in which to do so.

Can’t they just learn though? 

[kirashi]

4 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

Can’t they just learn though? 

Learning doesn't help for those who've already spent $1000, $2000, or $3000 on a laptop and cannot return it.

 

While I can understand the logic behind locking down devices, consumers MUST be educated by the manufacturer about this at or before point of sale so they can make an informed decision as to whether a locked down device is right for their use-case.

 

It's really no different than purchasing a motor vehicle - it's just that motor vehicles don't prohibit the installation and use of third party wheels & tires (yet) so one would never think to ask the dealership if there are any protection mechanisms in place to prevent this.

[Imbadatnames]

14 minutes ago, kirashi said:

Learning doesn't help for those who've already spent $1000, $2000, or $3000 on a laptop and cannot return it.

 

While I can understand the logic behind locking down devices, consumers MUST be educated by the manufacturer about this at or before point of sale so they can make an informed decision as to whether a locked down device is right for their use-case.

 

It's really no different than purchasing a motor vehicle - it's just that motor vehicles don't prohibit the installation and use of third party wheels & tires (yet) so one would never think to ask the dealership if there are any protection mechanisms in place to prevent this.

It’s not the manufactures job to make sure you do your due diligence. For example It’s not a DIY stores fault that you bought a piece of equipment that requires 3P power which you don’t have. Do your homework, if you didn’t then you can’t blame someone else. There was plenty of information on this before W11 even launched and TPM was mentioned specifically by Microsoft in the system requirements. 

 

Tires are consumable items…

[kirashi]

25 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

It’s not the manufactures job to make sure you do your due diligence.

I never said it was, but perhaps phrased that poorly.

 

What I meant is that it's the manufacturer's responsibility to ensure all product "features" are clearly disclosed to potential customers. If a customer wants a training class on Secured Core prior to purchase, they should self-educate, however, manufacturers must clearly disclose product limitations.

 

This would be akin to vehicle manufacturers not advertising a new safety "feature" that disables a vehicle should you pull down the headliner to route dashcam power cables. They can implement this, but must disclose this feature prior to sale so customers can decide if that vehicle is right for them.

 

25 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

There was plenty of information on this before W11 even launched. 

Correct; however, I've never seen "Secured Core" advertised outside of the Enterprise space so regular consumers wouldn't even know to look for this prior to purchasing a machine, let alone understand that "securing the boot process" means they can't boot into their Operating System of choice.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/design/device-experiences/oem-highly-secure

https://www.hp.com/us-en/laptops/business/msft-secured-core.html

https://www.lenovo.com/ca/en/c/laptops/thinkpad/secured-pc/

 

Note: if this feature only makes its way into the Enterprise market, it's a moot point for consumers.

 

All I'm saying is that manufacturers must clearly disclose all product capabilities so consumers can effectively perform due diligence prior to purchase, whether that's taking a training class or asking the manufacturer's support team (not sales) if product Y can do action X before purchase.

[Lurking]

So will that come for motherboards as well? 

 

At minimum the package and description should clearly say "can only install Windows"  and not just some term like "secured core". Even a somewhat informed user would not be able to tell the limitation by just reading "secured core".

[Beerzerker]

11 hours ago, mahyar said:

the video pretty much explains it all, microsoft wants to further monopolize the pc space

either they are afraid of linux's progress in the past few years or they gain something else from it 

nonetheless it just further proves that microsoft never really abandoned the E.E.E protocol  

(Warning -  This is a bit of a rant.)

They stand to gain more data on you and control too.
This is why they don't like Linux.

It's a load of bullshit newer hardware doesn't work on an OS like Win 7 for example because MS "says" it shoudn't even though it can and does just fine.
What they chose to disable with newer chips and Win 7 is really specific about the user's control/interface, namely with USB ports.

They refuse to support it and have even gone as far as to tell AMD and Intel to kill Win 7's USB functionality even if it's working fine with the old chip. It's when a new chip is simply dropped in the board it gets snuffed.
The USB port(s) were working great, you upgrade your CPU and ONLY your CPU - USB stops working and you can't get it going again in the OS itself, EVEN if you swap the old chip back in and try it.

It's also funny even with that, these same ports DO work before the OS itself is loaded. You can use a USB based keyboard to access the BIOS during bootup no prob but once the OS itself loads it no longer works.
I hope that may help to understand some of the "Why" behind these things and also why they are actually afraid of Linux. Their own, self-created and implemented bullshit has caused many to ditch Windows as their OS (I"m one of them) and glad I did.

All this was done intentially to FORCE you to go Win10/11 and all it's invasive snooping/telemetry (Spying).
The biggest hook of it all was of course, gaming and they knew it when they did it.

The latest about TPM is yet another nail in the coffin of users having any say or choices about their own machine.

OK - Rant over, have a nice day guys.

[wanderingfool2]

Based on the wording, it almost seems like you can change the setting in Bios to reallow 3rd party?

 

Not sure, but if it's just a bios option that lets you re-enable it then I don't care.  if it's something that actually limits you completely then yea it's an issue, and needs to be clearly identified on the packaging (and not just small notification).  Like listed along side the specs

[mahyar]

12 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Based on the wording, it almost seems like you can change the setting in Bios to reallow 3rd party?

 

Not sure, but if it's just a bios option that lets you re-enable it then I don't care.  if it's something that actually limits you completely then yea it's an issue, and needs to be clearly identified on the packaging (and not just small notification).  Like listed along side the specs

i assumed so it first and even if it's correct, what's stopping microsoft from locking it down permanently?

[wanderingfool2]

15 minutes ago, mahyar said:

i assumed so it first and even if it's correct, what's stopping microsoft from locking it down permanently?

Well I mean it would be different if they disallow even a bios option, but at least from what was stated it seems as though it's only the disallow 3rd parties by default.  if that is true, then I don't have a problem if there is still an option through bios...no different from how Android makes it by default not allowing 3rd party...but you can enable it.

[mahyar]

2 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Well I mean it would be different if they disallow even a bios option, but at least from what was stated it seems as though it's only the disallow 3rd parties by default.  if that is true, then I don't have a problem if there is still an option through bios...no different from how Android makes it by default not allowing 3rd party...but you can enable it.

  

19 minutes ago, mahyar said:

what's stopping microsoft from locking it down permanently

 

[wanderingfool2]

29 minutes ago, mahyar said:

  

 

Microsoft wouldn't be able to trigger things to disable it on the bios level.  At this stage it's like saying how do we know the Microsoft isn't going to create a backdoor and monitor all keyboard strokes on the computer.

 

If they make a move to make the bioses released without an 3rd party option then we can talk, but if it's simply having it first party on by default I really don't care about that.

[Imbadatnames]

9 hours ago, kirashi said:

I never said it was, but perhaps phrased that poorly.

 

What I meant is that it's the manufacturer's responsibility to ensure all product "features" are clearly disclosed to potential customers. If a customer wants a training class on Secured Core prior to purchase, they should self-educate, however, manufacturers must clearly disclose product limitations.

TPM was clearly disclosed to the point of then saying at first that your system is not compatible if it doesn’t have hardware support 

9 hours ago, kirashi said:

 

This would be akin to vehicle manufacturers not advertising a new safety "feature" that disables a vehicle should you pull down the headliner to route dashcam power cables. They can implement this, but must disclose this feature prior to sale so customers can decide if that vehicle is right for them.

Aside from it was clearly disclosed

9 hours ago, kirashi said:

 

Correct; however, I've never seen "Secured Core" advertised outside of the Enterprise space so regular consumers wouldn't even know to look for this prior to purchasing a machine, let alone understand that "securing the boot process" means they can't boot into their Operating System of choice.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/design/device-experiences/oem-highly-secure

https://www.hp.com/us-en/laptops/business/msft-secured-core.html

https://www.lenovo.com/ca/en/c/laptops/thinkpad/secured-pc/

 

Note: if this feature only makes its way into the Enterprise market, it's a moot point for consumers.

 

All I'm saying is that manufacturers must clearly disclose all product capabilities so consumers can effectively perform due diligence prior to purchase, whether that's taking a training class or asking the manufacturer's support team (not sales) if product Y can do action X before purchase.

It was clearly disclosed

[wanderingfool2]

11 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

TPM was clearly disclosed to the point of then saying at first that your system is not compatible if it doesn’t have hardware support 

Aside from it was clearly disclosed

It was clearly disclosed

Did you even bother watching the video?  The claim is that they have disabled the bios setting by default (potentially not including the bios setting at all, but unsure) and have it so only Microsoft's trust server.

 

Linux supports TPM, what is allegedly happening is that the UEFI secure boot is only allowing MS because it's only allowing MS certificates.  That is not readily disclosed.

[Imbadatnames]

2 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Did you even bother watching the video?  The claim is that they have disabled the bios setting by default (potentially not including the bios setting at all, but unsure) and have it so only Microsoft's trust server.

Have you never used a prebuilt or a laptop? Especially those used on business contracts. 

2 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

 

Linux supports TPM, what is allegedly happening is that the UEFI secure boot is only allowing MS because it's only allowing MS certificates.  That is not readily disclosed.

You should go read Microsoft’s website and the T&Cs 

[wanderingfool2]

4 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

Have you never used a prebuilt or a laptop? Especially those used on business contracts. 

That has little to do with the argument.

 

Hypothetically, if they are selling a product that is limited to Windows only they should have to disclose.  I've used Linux USB sticks a lot at work to recover workstations/laptops (usually with a nearly failing HDD).

 

It's similar to how they thought it was a good idea locking the CPU to the motherboard, they should have to disclose that

 

5 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

You should go read Microsoft’s website and the T&Cs 

Microsoft's T&C should never dictate what you do with a physical piece of hardware, unless it's disclosed on the product being purchased.

 

It's not that hard to understand.  If a product is intentionally limited to only being able to install MS Windows, then it should be required to state as much

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, mahyar said:

i assumed so it first and even if it's correct, what's stopping microsoft from locking it down permanently?

That's blanket argument that can be used to argue anything without foundation.  Until they actually do, a "what if/what's stopping" argument is just speculation at best and slippery slope argument at worst. 

 

But to answer it as best I can and assuming they would be motivated to do so,  In countries with really strong consumer laws like Australia, if the PC is sold as being windows only then there is literally nothing that can be done, niothing will be stopping them and consumers would know its a thing.   If you want to run Linux then buy a PC that can.  I would assume if you are intending on running something other than the OS your new PC comes with then you should already be more knowledgeable than the average user who doesn't change anything ever. 

 

 

Also I think a similar debate has happened here before with some very enlightening discussions between @LAwLz and @leadeater regarding security, MS and bios/uefi etc.

https://linustechtips.com/topic/1350695-tpmpocalypse-microsoft-singlehandedly-destroys-the-tpm-market/page/6/

 

 

Somewhere around there anyway.   

 

 

 

 

[Beerzerker]

53 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 Also I think a similar debate has happened here before with some very enlightening discussions between @LAwLz and @leadeater regarding security, MS and bios/uefi etc.

https://linustechtips.com/topic/1350695-tpmpocalypse-microsoft-singlehandedly-destroys-the-tpm-market/page/6/

 

Somewhere around there anyway.   

 

 

 

 

If I recall correctly that one also got a bit "Out there" before it was over with.
 

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

That's blanket argument that can be used to argue anything without foundation.  Until they actually do, a "what if/what's stopping" argument is just speculation at best and slippery slope argument at worst. 

Well Microsoft actually stepped up to the plate in the first place to provide UEFI Certificate Signing so secure boot was accessible to all, time for someone else to be handling that. EVERYONE has been riding on Microsoft's back when it comes to secure boot unless it's a large corporate or letter acronym organization that is loading their own keys in to their BIOS/UEFI so only their signed OS boots.

 

Spoiler

Apple devices and Mac OS not included 

 

5 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Linux supports TPM, what is allegedly happening is that the UEFI secure boot is only allowing MS because it's only allowing MS certificates.  That is not readily disclosed.

You should read the wording again of how UEFI Secure Boot has been working all along. Linux Secure Boot works only because Microsoft allows other operating systems to get their boot loaders signed by Microsoft. The whole house of cards has been Microsoft the entire time.

 

P.S. Sane discussion is 99.9% impossible for this subject area so...

Good luck everybody, don't call me again lol

[wseaton]

Even assuming that the PC only allows the installation of a Microsoft approved OS this then becomes a rant against the hardware manufacturer, not Microsoft. 

 

Captain Obvious, eh?

 

Plenty of peripherals that dont support Linux. Part of the conspiracy as well?

 

The argument that your grandma doesn't install the latest Linux distro over Win10 because of men in black suites and mind control devices hasn't been meta since 2005. 

 

Real PC customers the want to run Linux order them configured that way. 

 

 

 

 

[mahyar]

18 minutes ago, wseaton said:

Even assuming that the PC only allows the installation of a Microsoft approved OS this then becomes a rant against the hardware manufacturer, not Microsoft. 

 

Captain Obvious, eh?

 

Plenty of peripherals that dont support Linux. Part of the conspiracy as well?

 

The argument that your grandma doesn't install the latest Linux distro over Win10 because of men in black suites and mind control devices hasn't been meta since 2005. 

 

Real PC customers the want to run Linux order them configured that way. 

 

 

 

 

that's not the point, sure linux doesn't have the greatest peripheral compatibility and is very niche in desktop space 

but how does that give a company to stop one from installing it? 

[wanderingfool2]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

You should read the wording again of how UEFI Secure Boot has been working all along. Linux Secure Boot works only because Microsoft allows other operating systems to get their boot loaders signed by Microsoft. The whole house of cards has been Microsoft the entire time.

What I said is true though.  The are allegedly only accepting MS certificate authorities for signing, vs 3rd party CA's which Linux utilizes.

 

I remember the debate when MS was making it mandatory and the word essentially was that Linux wouldn't have to worry that they could get their stuff signed and there would be support for it.

MS is the gatekeeper because they effectively forced themselves as the gatekeeper.

 

You have said nothing that contradicts my argument IF they are allegedly are disabling the 3rd party CA's (and not an option to allowed the 3rd party) then it should be disclosed.  Since Linux is supported through a 3rd party CA (it doesn't matter that the 3rd party CA is signed by MS...as that's how MS forced it on the community).

 

But the general argument being that unlike what @Imbadatnames said you can't claim to be properly informed and such because secure boot has in all cases I'm aware of had the option of 3rd party CA's (but like what my first post in this thread was, it seems as though there is still the bios option but the video also seems to imply there isn't)

[Imbadatnames]

9 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

That has little to do with the argument.

It does. OEMs lock out the bios effectively from those machines yet it’s never mentioned. 

9 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

 

Hypothetically, if they are selling a product that is limited to Windows only they should have to disclose.  I've used Linux USB sticks a lot at work to recover workstations/laptops (usually with a nearly failing HDD).

Just don’t use bit-locker/ on disc encryption then. You can always plug it into another pc then and drag it off there. 

9 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

 

It's similar to how they thought it was a good idea locking the CPU to the motherboard, they should have to disclose that

They did disclose that, Lenovo didn’t. 

9 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

 

Microsoft's T&C should never dictate what you do with a physical piece of hardware, unless it's disclosed on the product being purchased.

You install the software agreeing to those terms. If you don’t like them then don’t install windows.  

9 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

 

It's not that hard to understand.  If a product is intentionally limited to only being able to install MS Windows, then it should be required to state as much

Or you could due due diligence. No one is going to put that on the box for the dozens of people who use Linux. 

[wanderingfool2]

4 hours ago, Imbadatnames said:

It does. OEMs lock out the bios effectively from those machines yet it’s never mentioned. 

I've never come across a single PC or laptop that literally locks out the UEFI.

 

4 hours ago, Imbadatnames said:

Just don’t use bit-locker/ on disc encryption then. You can always plug it into another pc then and drag it off there. 

That's a foolish argument.  A PC should not have an arbitrary lock at the BIOS level to only accept a single OS (or if it is the case, it needs to be advertised).

 

4 hours ago, Imbadatnames said:

They did disclose that, Lenovo didn’t.

Which if you bothered to even watch the video it's Lenovo doing it again locking things down.

 

4 hours ago, Imbadatnames said:

You install the software agreeing to those terms. If you don’t like them then don’t install windows.  

You are being obtuse once again in another thread.  The claim is, if you purchase the laptop, before even launching Windows you will NOT be able to install Linux because they have disabled 3rd party CA's, which is how Linux gets installed.''

 

It has zero to do with Windows license agreement, and from what I know MS Windows agreement doesn't contain lines limiting the usage of the entire machine to only be a single system.

 

4 hours ago, Imbadatnames said:

Or you could due due diligence. No one is going to put that on the box for the dozens of people who use Linux. 

That's a stupid argument, if they don't document it you can't.  If you say doing due diligence, yet claiming they shouldn't be required to put it on the box.  Well here's a hint, if what is being claimed is true then they should have to disclose it because you can't do due diligence.