On 10/19/2011 08:01 PM, Phong Nguyen wrote:
> On 19 Oct 2011, at 2138, Yasha Karant wrote:
>>
>> Although this discussion is socio-political, and thus outside the
>> nominal items on this list, the reality of Microsoft is that of an
>> entrenched monopolist, of which charge Microsoft has been convicted
>> in several governments.  Microsoft exists for one purpose only:
>> profiteering.  The idea that the market controls both the offerings
>> and quality of goods and services requires an open free market (as
>> more or less explained in Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith), neither
>> an unregulated monopoly nor oligopolies.  There is no reason to
>> assume that Microsoft will either "play fair" nor work in the
>> public interest (see statements in the Association for Computing
>> Machinery code of ethics).
>>
>> The issue before this list is the ability for the systems
>> administrator (administrator/end-user for one's own laptop) to
>> select whatever operating environment legally can be used on the
>> hardware.  In particular, under the UEFI restrictions, given that a
>> licensed-for-free system such as Linux (including SL and other EL
>> clones) may not have a key recognized by the hardware if the only
>> keys the hardware vendor provides are for Microsoft, under which
>> scenario only Microsoft approved environments would be allowed to
>> boot.
>>
>> If law -- not just some nebulous "market force" to which an
>> entrenched monopolist mostly is immune -- does not require machine
>> manufacturers not install a Microsoft-only boot -- but rather allow
>> the hardware owner to select the booted / installed system -- then
>> UEFI might be a nuisance, but not an insurmountable barrier.  As it
>> stands, UEFI appears to be such an insurmountable barrier.
>>
> I do not assume that Microsoft will "play fair" out of the goodness
> of their corporate heart. As the various agencies have brought down
> the hammer on Microsoft for their anticompetitive practices,
> Microsoft now has a financial interest in remaining fairly
> competitive. Given continued oversight (and if the US DOJ is
> disinclined, the EU is), we may be reasonably confident that they are
> not going to try and lock everyone else out.
>
> What does Microsoft gain by locking down a PC? Casual users are not
> going to install alternative operating systems anyways. Technically
> proficient users will only be encouraged to find ways to break the
> secure boot process (for a real example, consoles, and the debacle
> over Sony's Playstation 3) - and that is *not* in Microsoft's
> interest.
>
> There is much hue and cry over the potential for UEFI abuse - and we
> yet see no concrete evidence of abuse. There is no proof that
> Microsoft is trying to stamp out alternative operating systems with
> such tactics and direct statements by high-level personnel that they,
> in fact, are not trying to.
>
> If, indeed, Microsoft forces their OEM/VARs to lock down the boot
> process, I'll eat plenty of crow.

 From your statement:  if the US DOJ is disinclined, the EU is

As a result of this reality, transnational hardware vendors sometimes 
(often?) provide two versions of nominally the same computer.  One, 
typically the version for sale in the USA, uses hardware for which there 
is no Linux driver, and comes with MS Windows with MS Internet Explorer 
pre-installed.  The second, for sale in the EU, has hardware for which 
the manufacturer has released sufficient information to write a device 
driver (not provided that information strictly to Microsoft under 
restrictive covenant, requiring at best reverse engineering to write a 
device driver), and typically allows the end-user to select the web 
browser application to install and use (e.g., Opera, Firefox, etc., not 
just strictly MS IE by default) even if MS Win is pre-installed.

In the USA, we have the finest branches of government (legislative, 
judicial, and executive) that money can buy -- particularly since the 
USA Supreme Court decision in Citizens United putting no restrictions 
upon for-profit corporations -- or as one of the USA Republican (Tea 
Party) Presidential candidates exclaimed, "corporations are persons 
too".  As a result, I for one have no confidence than the USA Department 
of Justice will do much if anything effectively to restrict the MS 
monopoly.  This is a socio-political reality of what amounts to a 
non-free market.

But -- we must return to the practical issue:  can an non-MS Windows 
environment boot under a UEFI dedicated to MS?

Yasha Karant