Does This hold water?

[FrankRamiro]

plot to lock other operating systems from Windows 8 devices, but now we know Microsoft was not telling the whole truth.

Journalist Glyn Moody dug around Microsoft's Windows Hardware Certification Requirements for Windows 8 client and server systems and found on page 116 that will Windows 8 Secure Boot can be disabled: on Intel systems, "Disabling Secure [Boot] must not be possible on ARM systems."

What does that mean? According to Aaron Williamson, a lawyer with the Software Freedom Law Center an organization that provides pro-bono legal services to developers of Free and open-source software, Microsoft has wasted no time in effectively banning most alternative operating systems on ARM-based devices that ship with Windows 8.

Microsoft will be doing this by using Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI), to block block all other operating systems from Windows 8 systems. UEFI is the 21st century's replacement to PC and other devices' BIOS. It's used to set up your computer and make it ready to boot.

Williamson explains, "The Certification Requirements define ... a 'custom' secure boot mode, in which a physically present user can add signatures for alternative operating systems to the system's signature database, allowing the system to boot those operating systems. But for ARM devices, Custom Mode is prohibited: 'On an ARM system, it is forbidden to enable Custom Mode. Only Standard Mode may be enable." [sic] Nor will users have the choice to simply disable secure boot, as they will on non-ARM systems: "Disabling Secure [Boot] MUST NOT be possible on ARM systems.' [sic] Between these two requirements, any ARM device that ships with Windows 8 will never run another operating system, unless it is signed with a preloaded key or a security exploit is found that enables users to circumvent secure boot."

In short, Microsoft insists that any Windows 8 ARM-powered device can not be rebooted or rooted with the user's choice of operating system. And you thought rooting some Android phones was troublesome!

Williamson went on to say that while "While UEFI secure boot is ostensibly about protecting user security, these non-standard restrictions have nothing to do with security. For non-ARM systems, Microsoft requires that Custom Mode be enabled-a perverse demand if Custom Mode is a security threat. But the ARM market is different for Microsoft in three important respects"

 

[code65536]

Microsoft also prohibits running any software on RT that doesn't come from the curated Windows Store. You know, this sounds a awful lot like another company that makes ARM-based devices. I think that company uses some sort of fruit for its logo...

In case it's not clear yet, Windows RT is not Windows. Windows RT is Microsoft's experiment at seeing how people react to a curated computing experience like what people get with Apple or non-Nexus Android offerings. It's an experiment to see if people are willing to throw away traditional Windows freedoms if it also means a simpler, worry-free experience without malware and the such. I would personally never use RT, but who knows, maybe this sort of thing might appeal to the "grandparent" users who are much more worried about their system being compromised than about being able to install Linux (To which the "grandparent" user says, "Huh? What's that? And what's this 'OS' thing you keep going on about?").

 

[Dahak]

I don't get what all the fuss is about this. A windows RT device is not an X86 device.

Its no different than what Apple does. Does Apple allow other oses installed on the ipad? No, same thing here.

Now if it was locked out on X86 that is a different story.

But because its Microsoft, we have to make a big fuss. Well in that case we should go after Apple, Google, Samsung,Asus,Acer, Dell and any other Android based developer to allow you to replace the os.

This is making a fuss/scene for the hell of it.

 

[Aluvus]

Now if it was locked out on X86 that is a different story.

But why is CPU architecture the one determining factor? Why not any other criteria?

 

[code65536]

But why is CPU architecture the one determining factor? Why not any other criteria?

First, because most alternate OS's are primarily x86. Yes, there's Linux on ARM (and just about everything else), but most people, when they deal with Linux or another OS are dealing with the x86 version.

Second, because ARM is like a clean start, in the sense that Microsoft is already breaking compatibility with the existing Windows ecosystem by changing the uarch and thus breaking binary compatibility, so if Microsoft were to experiment with a tightly-curated experience, ARM is the place to do it. It would be more arbitrary to artificially lock down x86 than it would be with ARM.

And finally, none of this really matters because there are plenty of x86 choices, and in fact, many OEMs are dropping the RT models because of a lack of demand for them. As I said, this is Microsoft's experiment. Don't participate in it if you don't want to (and it looks like many people aren't).