SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Right now, Microsoft is inspiring horror stories with "forced upgrades" and/or incessant nagging to upgrade to Windows 10. Yet more horror stories are being generated with the invasive "telemetry", and the personalized advertising found within the OS.
In recent weeks, the wife has complained about the Windows 10 nag. She runs Win7 Home Premium, and got the nag until I "fixed" it. I run Win7 Pro in my virtual machines, and I don't get the nag. I got the telemetry updates, but not the nag.
Those of us over a certain age remember the original separation between enterprise grade Windows NT (NT3, NT4, Win2000) and the consumer grade Windows (Win 1, 2, 3, 3.11, 95, 98, 98SE and Millenium) until they were joined together with WinXP. With WinXP, we saw the same OS used for consumer and enterprise, with advanced features enabled in Pro and Enterprise, and the same features disabled in consumer versions.
So, here we are today, with MS trying to phase out Win7, and force feeding Windows 10 to the world.
Going forward - is MS also going to force feed Win10 to the professional/enterprise world? Or, will they send the consumer and enterprise OS's down divergent paths? Are we going to see insecurity built into the consumer line of products, and better security and features built into the professional lines?
What does the future hold? Any guesses?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 26 2015, @01:01AM
I suspect if Microsoft wanted to be really evil, whey could push firmware updates that make the computer refuse to boot (non-signed) Linux or BSD.
When I have told people that Microsoft may hold everybody's computers hostage, demanding an annual payment, I am met with skepticism. The reason is that such an act would be too brazen. The government or courts would be forced to act (even if they are powerless to do anything). There is a very real possibility that there would be torches and pitchforks at Microsoft buildings if they tried to pull such a stunt.
The scary part of the calculus is that by the time Microsoft is holding your computer hostage, it is too late. You will lose access to your "cloud" back-ups. You will be prevented from doing an orderly back-up from within Windows due to "limited functionality mode". And if they want to be evil (and risk being lynched), they may remove you ability to boot an alternate OS.
If the events I outline come to pass, the price of a GNU/Linux compatible computer will jump 10-fold within days. The few remaining machines in stores will likely have severe issues with proprietary drivers and hardware. There may be looting in the streets, depending how much of the world is dependant on Microsoft Windows.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 26 2015, @01:13AM
there will be EULA pushes before that happens where users will have clicked away their rights to seek any recourse. the courts have more or less said that these EULAs stand up in court, and thus we will have no standing to sue, if it hasnt happened already.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Saturday December 26 2015, @01:22PM
the courts have more or less said that these EULAs stand up in court
Time to move to a place where the opposite is true.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Jiro on Saturday December 26 2015, @01:21AM
They're already doing this without bothering with firmware updates. Look up UEFI Secure Boot.
(Score: 2, Informative) by frojack on Saturday December 26 2015, @02:27AM
UEFI does not prevent Linux or BSD from booting.
UEFI is really a useless addition, offering no believable protection. But it also does not prevent the installation of other OSes.
Not only does windows offer to sign any linux distro shims (to avoid the FTC perhaps) but there is also a pure linux UEFI signing project as well as a FreeBSD project underway.
You do know, don't you, that Microsoft can't just flip a switch and force the entire world to run Windows because of UEFI?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 26 2015, @09:53AM
You do know, don't you, that Microsoft can't just flip a switch and force the entire world to run Windows because of UEFI?
Of course I know that. If they could they already would have flipped that switch.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 26 2015, @04:21PM
The important issue is who controls the signing keys: Microsoft and Intel or the user/owner of the computer.
If the owner of the computer is not allowed to tell the BIOS which signing keys they trust, then yes, Microsoft can "flip a switch" and refuse to boot other OSs. I suspect it would require cooperation with hardware vendors, which hopefully would not be forthcoming.
BTW, Microsoft already tried to lock out other OSs with UEFI; with their Windows RT flop.
Microsoft mandating Secure Boot on ARM, making Linux installs difficult [arstechnica.com]
(Score: 2) by Jiro on Saturday December 26 2015, @06:12PM
The statement wasn't about preventing Linux or BSD from booting, it was about preventing "(non-signed) Linux or BSD" from booting. UEFI secure boot does prevent non-signed Linux oir BSD from booting.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by frojack on Saturday December 26 2015, @08:20PM
Seems pretty clear to me that the statement made no such distinction, and was a blanket assertion that Microsoft was in a position to enforce Windows as the ONLY operating system allowed in the world.
But I'll go back and re-read what was actually written, if you promise to do the same.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Saturday December 26 2015, @05:19AM
I suspect if Microsoft wanted to be really evil, whey could push firmware updates that make the computer refuse to boot (non-signed) Linux or BSD.
Do you seriously believe this?
They can't even get away with making their own browser the default without getting dragged into court just about everywhere in the world, yet you think nobody would lift a finger when all other OSes can no longer run, and everybody needs to come crawling to Windows. Would the EU draw and quarter them before the FTC could behead them? Or does everyone just roll over and say Uncle?
Come on!
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 26 2015, @06:23AM
Would Sony spread DRM malware? Would Sony remove OtherOS from people's consoles? Would Evil Corporation do Evil Thing X? Yes. Yes they would, if given the opportunity. Our bought-and-paid-for government will perhaps eventually give them the opportunity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 26 2015, @02:44PM
"I suspect if Microsoft wanted to be really evil, whey could push firmware updates that make the computer refuse to boot (non-signed) Linux or BSD."
Uh. I can see Microsoft getting sued into the ground if they seriously tried to stop alternate OSes from being run on hardware they don't own. I can see them -trying- this, but I don't know if I'd see it succeeding to that level before push back and competitors take the opportunity to take over as a serious alternative. (Even Apple would have done better if they weren't so adamant about pricing themselves out of the mass market.)