Locked-Down Tablets Endanger FLOSS For End Users 242
itwbennett writes "If you buy into the idea that tablets (and ultrabooks, and smartphones) in the enterprise are nothing more than glorified thin clients, then Microsoft's Surface presentation seemed more flashback than future. And if you're a fan of free software, the announcement might also have struck fear in your heart. While Microsoft has never locked out apps based on license, it's not impossible that they might chose a more locked-down Apple-esque approach for Surface, writes blogger Brian Proffitt. 'And that could put free software for end users very much at risk.'"
Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
A post for some anti-Microsoft tinfoil hat? Must be a slow news day.
Indeed.
But you know, it's Microsoft's product, they can build it however they want - you're not obligated to buy it.
On the other hand, if you DO buy it, nothing should stop you from at least trying to unlock it and load some other OS... You *do* own the hardware, but MS can design, build, and load it however they damn well feel like...
Re: (Score:2)
Problem being, today the relative minority enjoy the hardware out there primarily designed to run MS software but also can run Linux due to the way things historically panned out.
If tomorrow the 95% of hardwer designed to run MS is tilted to run MS *exclusively*, the minority no longer has a significant, affordable market to buy in.
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't that the price of freedom?
It ain't free.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)
Why would this happen? Today there are two players in the market that are well ahead of MS, and seem to be standing strong where MS is trying to break in. One of these players encourages a lot of free and open apps, and has plenty of hardware industry support as well as an original enabler of the entire platform with possibly deeper pockets than microsoft.
I would not expect a former monopoly holder on last decades technology who is well behind in the current fields to be able to re-assert itself into the same position as it had enjoyed previously.
Re: (Score:2)
My concern being does this bleed over to the desktop and laptop market in time. Like it or not, MS dominates that particular space.
Re: (Score:3)
the changes seem to be radiating backwards in this case. The users are becoming more attached to their portable devices, and the desktops are going to have to keep up with compatibility. Microsoft is not in the position ( yet, and hopefully to remain.. so i see your point) to drive the utilization of these devices, as more and more companies are allowing users to supply their own toys.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
true, but there needs to be some form of visionary in place to realise the new direction that the entire market wants to go in, and then be capable of providing it. I dont think that MS is going to provide a market leading visionary any time soon. Apple provided the ipod and iphone, both of which provided a fairly large change in a product as far as most people were concerned. For microsoft to pull this off, they are already too far behind on the tablets, and will need to redefine how we use the next pieces
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing Linux's long-term success has nothing to do with whether it is ever popular on the desktop, then.
Re: (Score:3)
As much fun as it is to bash Microsoft, the sad truth is that the most TiVO-ized and locked down hardware on Earth usually runs some bastardized de-facto fork of Linux. Once Microsoft gets your money, they tend to not care if you want to blow away their OS and replace it with something else. Contrast that with the behavior of... say... Motorola, who's hellbent on shoving locked-down TiVO-ized hardware down its users' throats (though some of us haven't given up hope that Google will eventually make them non-
Sony v. Hotz (Score:3)
they can build it however they want - you're not obligated to buy it.
Say I want a video game console on which I can run homemade video games. Should I get a Microsoft, Nintendo, or Sony console? They're all locked down.
nothing should stop you from at least trying to unlock it and load some other OS
Nothing should stop people, but copyright law does stop people. Sony v. Hotz.
Re: (Score:2)
Say I want a video game console on which I can run homemade video games. Should I get a Microsoft, Nintendo, or Sony console? They're all locked down.
Buy a computer.
Re: (Score:3)
Today's game consoles are basically squeezed-down PCs anyway. "Build your own" used to be a flippant response, now it's actually very doable. Get a small case, put some hardware in it, a TV-out graphics card, hook up some gamepads, install whatever interface you want (maybe Linux running MAME, Windows running Steam, basically do whatever you care to here), and bam! You've got a game console.
It's weird how people complain so much now, when there is so much cheap commodity hardware available that there's no e
Re: (Score:2)
what would be the point?you can buy a brand X chineese android tablet and hack away all you want
soon you will be able to buy brand x x86 tablets and hack away
why buy an apple, MS or other locked down device meant for people not like yourself just to complain?
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
But you know, it's Microsoft's product, they can build it however they want - you're not obligated to buy it. [..] You *do* own the hardware, but MS can design, build, and load it however they damn well feel like...
Yawn, it's the old "it's a free market and it's their product and you're not obliged to buy it so you have no right to criticise " response that keeps popping up on Slashdot, either from the mouths of fanboys or from those who (incorrectly) think this is how a free market works.
Let's me be clear- the first (non-italicised part) is valid and reasonable. The problem is when the above types assume that the "no right to criticise" bit follows too. That part is either stated explicitly or implied (as in the above case, since the comment was posted in the context of being a response to criticism of MS's behaviour (*)). Either way, it's wrong.
Yes... yes, they're entitled to do what they like (within reason). And similarly, people are morally entitled to criticise things about that they disagree with. See, it cuts both ways. I'm quite entitled to criticise a company and their products, services and/or practices, regardless of whether I have the intention of buying them or not. The company isn't obligated to sell it, after all.
The implication otherwise is that anyone who doesn't buy a given product in a free market isn't entitled to have an opinion on it. See that car model you know is lousy- and can explain why to your neighbour or other forum members who are thinking about buying one? You should shut up about that because it's a free market and they can design it lousy if they want and you don't have to buy it. Matter of fact, logically the implication applies equally to those who did buy it- since they didn't *have* to. The engine fell out of your brand new Chery QQ after 1500 miles? You weren't obligated to buy it, so you have no right to whine.
In short, no, that's not how it works.
(*) Yes, let's remember that MS themselves haven't actually done this yet- only that someone is speculating that they *might*.
Re: (Score:2)
haven't done what? windows rt tablets are locked down, no news there, they're required to do a good effort in locking them down - how good or not they are at it remains to be seen.
the win8 x86 tablets are free to toy around as much as you want(and ms license requires them to be, too).
(personally, my biggest complaint about ipad is how locked down it is, too, and I do bitch about it regularly, I don't see any advantage for winRT over ipad really).
Agreed (Score:2)
I figure that the UEFI BIOS for ARM is open source, Linux is open source... Shouldn't be so hard to produce a non-Windows or Apple tablet. I just don't see any problem with Microsoft and even other vendors locking the devices they make. Why not just buy something else?
Oops... Forgot.. Slashdot... People here intentionally buy locked down devices do they can bitch about their lack of
Re: (Score:2)
A post for some anti-Microsoft tinfoil hat? Must be a slow news day.
Well there is news that is more eye opening or at least entertaining (see below). Maybe combine the stories, list this one as an example of what locked-down keeps out? Or twist it into something more fun, a feature for beta software where the dev breaks in and comments on a feature you're using and offers an improvement or asks you if you'd like source to do it yourself?
http://arstechnica.com/security/2012/06/hacker-uses-malware-built-in-chat-to-toy-with-researchers/ [arstechnica.com]
FUDD (Score:4, Funny)
They may also make it such that it calls you mean names...
Re:FUDD (Score:5, Insightful)
+1. I was aboout to post the same thing. This is a BLOG that is filled with nothing but speculation to induce fear, uncertainty, and doubt about what Microsoft MIGHT do to lock-out devices. It was a waste of my time to read. 1/10 stars.
The final paragraph should have been the /. summary: "Free software won't completely go away, of course. There's too much back-end functionality in too many IT sectors for that to ever happen. But with the rise of thin clients and the app store gateways, end users may have a harder time finding and installing free software for their personal or business use."
Re: (Score:2)
Might do? You mean like mandate 3rd parties enforce UEFI Secure Boot to ensure nothing can modify the boot process? You knock out malware and alternative operating systems (arguably malware from Microsoft's perspective) in one blow.
No, but you'll be pushed down the path of buying a multi-thousand dollar server of som
Re: (Score:2)
Might do? You mean like mandate 3rd parties enforce UEFI Secure Boot to ensure nothing can modify the boot process? You knock out malware and alternative operating systems (arguably malware from Microsoft's perspective) in one blow.
One of two things will happen if MS does this: 1) it will have no effect because they are such a tiny player in the tablet market and trying to lock out Android/ etc will have no impact on the availability of Android tablets (not necessarily unlocked, but that is up to the manufacturers) or 2) MS will get their ass sued off for anti-trust in about 5 seconds if they try things like "you have to sell only locked tablets to get OEM prices for x86 Windows." I'm not particularly worried: MS just doesn't have th
Antitrust hurt from whom? (Score:2)
if they try to exploit their non-tablet clout they will find themselves in a world of hurt legally
With the US DOJ being rendered toothless by the right wing and the EU allegedly about to break up over debt crises, from whom will this hurt come?
Re: (Score:3)
2a: Microsoft is sued.
2b: Microsoft stalls
2c: Microsoft appeals.
2d: After ten years, the legal action is finally over. Microsoft is fined for tens of millions of dollars. But by this point their control has allowed them to eradicate all competitors and make many billions of dollars in additional profit. Net winner: Microsoft. We've seen it before.
Re: (Score:2)
We've seen it before.
You are, apparently, very selective about the directions you're looking at, because Microsoft was fined a grand total of 4 billion dollars in EU not long ago (for IE).
Re: (Score:2)
By going to route of contracting their own devices microsoft runs the risk of making enemies of all of their former downstream partners. If they're enemies windows is going to get smacked down even trying to enter the tablet space, and if microsoft only really makes a lead in device (like the Google nexus line) then you just don't buy the Microsoft locked down product and buy the 3rd party manufacturer one that isn't.
In the end I think there is a market for dumbed down, locked down devices. Especially bec
Re: (Score:3)
They are bringing back Microsoft BOB?
Lock Out (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's a mutual incompatibility between the App Store and the GPL. Apple chose to make it this way.
The App Store (and by extension, Apple's walled garden) is decisively anti-end user freedom. The GPL is totally pro-end user freedom. But since Apple controls the store, the only way to legitimately get GPL software on there is to own all the copyrights to the code, strip the GPL (because it will be replaced with Apple's onerous terms,) and post it. Users can then go figure out how to make use of the GPL cod
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing at all stopping you from
A) Including your own license. Apple's does not apply in this scenario.
B) Including the source for your app and making it available via iTunes.
The sticking point would be the DRM that prevents redistribution of the binary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the GPLv2 is incompatible with the App Store as well. It has nothing to do with Tivoization, and everything to do with not adding any additional restrictions. Apple doesn't allow independent distribution of binaries that appear in the App Store, which is an additional restriction and thus forbidden by the GPL. The DRM stuff may be an additional issue that only applies to the GPLv3, but they're already incompatible with any flavor of GPL to start with.
Re:Lock Out (Score:4, Informative)
Your comment only applies to GPLv3 - and that was not Apple's doing.
GPLv2 code is fine on the app store (and there's a fair bit of it on there). Apple even changed their terms and conditions after the VLC incident to clarify the issue. There's nothing stopping you from releasing a GPLv2 app on the store and distributing the binaries and the source via other means (or even within the app).
The "hostility" comes in the form of the GPLv3, written seemingly in a fit of nerd rage that while the Tivo box was technically using the code legally, the spirit of the licence wasn't being followed, thus the highly restrictive v3 was born. I can totally understand why it was written, but to try and claim that the reason you can't use GPLv3 code on the app store is *Apple* hostility is just not painting the true picture. The v3 licence is simply incompatible by design *of the writers of the licence* to be hostile to App Store and Tivo-type business models.
Again, I can understand and respect that position, but it's not all on Apple for "being totally anti freedom".
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. Like the MAFIAA the GPL wants all the power to be in the hands of the _CREATOR_ of the copyrighted work. The _CREATOR_ not the user decides what the user can and can't do in terms of distribution.
If I am a user and I want to modify GPL software and make a product, I can't without being forced by the creator to release my new source code, even if I only took 10% of the GPL code and added 90% of my own. It is most definitely anti-user.
Uh, the _USER_ doesn't have to do anything. It's the people who want to take others work and make money off it without giving anything back who have to hand out their source code to the _USER_ so the _USER_ then has full control over what they do with their software. It's intensely pro-_USER_, just anti people like you who want to lock up other people's work for their own profit.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Count how much freely available software there is out there, with source code.
That's at least how many programmers there are who will write software and give away the source code (since many free software products have multiple contributors). While it might not be a majority of programmers, it's anything but a small number.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
GPL v3 alone was used in over 2,000 different software projects in 2008 [infoworld.com]
That's not counting GPL v2, LGPL, BSD, MIT, Apache, or any one of quite a number of other open source licenses. And of course, that's not counting how many other projects have become open source since that count was taken.
There's a *LOT* of programmers that give away code they write for free... and I highly doubt that even a significant percentage of them are in the category of being well enough off that they don't need to worry ab
No, it's Apple (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It's Apple's policies that are incompatible with the GPL, whic was a deliberate decision on the part of Apple to maintain their power over users.
Sorry.. could you point out what those are? I just read the app store policy and cant find any mention of 'source code' or GPL.
Re: (Score:3)
Can you provide a link to the app store policy? My understanding is that the developer has to agree not to make the binaries available through other channels, which, of course, has nothing to do with source code, but is an additional restriction and thus forbidden by the GPL. So you were looking for the wrong thing (after being misinformed by the OP). Note that we need to look at the developer's agreement, not an end user policy.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't exclude GPL. It's GPL which is incompatible. GPL puts many requirements of the distributor, which is Apple. However Apple does not want to take more responsible over third party software than what is absolutely necessary and does not allow developers to require such things from Apple. Therefore it's not specifically GPL, but all GPL like licenses that are incompatible. Apple's App Store is agnostic toward license, as long as the license is compatible.
Re: (Score:3)
+1 informative.
Do apple ban redistribution of sourcecode? No. VLC for iPhone's source code was available for download. (before VLC was pulled on request of one of the authors of VLC)
Do apple ban redistribution of the binary? Any iphone is free to copy from your iphone backups, and to send to whoever wants it....not that the recipient would be able to do much with it!
Do apple ban the use of using other peoples sourcecode in your own project?. Of course not
What apple do, is prevent installation of anything, t
Re: (Score:2)
+1 informative.
Do apple ban redistribution of sourcecode? No. VLC for iPhone's source code was available for download. (before VLC was pulled on request of one of the authors of VLC)
Actually, it's still available. You just have to build it yourself.
http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-ios.html [videolan.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Given that iOS is not immune to remote exploits (c.f. Jailbreakme) you are not immune to those problems. The 3 things you fear so greatly that you are willing to submit to Apple's authority are resolved by having applications vetted in the store. Anything else falls on you, and if you don't feel you can trust yourself to not install SuperSexySwimsuitApplication.app, then you shouldn't install an
Re: (Score:2)
Im dyslexic, you insensitive clod!
Re:Lock Out (Score:5, Informative)
Apple doesn't ban giving out the source code. I've downloaded the source to numerous iOS apps in Apple's store.
Re:Lock Out (Score:5, Insightful)
Under the GPL, Apple become the party burdened with ensuring the license is fulfilled, as they are the distributor - so yes, the license is to blame. There is no scope in the GPL for Apple to be anything other than the distributor, there is no allowance for an agent model, or a silent party (who holds no liability) acting as an enabler between the recipient and the originator.
And as this wasn't even duscussed during GPL v3 talks, yes it is a problem with the license - a deliberate one. The FSF and Gnu want to put entities like Apple into this position.
Re:Lock Out (Score:4, Informative)
If the copyright holders agree that their GPL licensed software may be distributed through the App Store then there is no problem.
And in practice, when GPL licensed software appears on the App Store, anyone can get the source code (you can even include it in the application package), you can make the application available to anyone else who wants it by telling them where to download it, you can create derived works. It's exactly the opposite of the Tivo situation where you had code that followed the letter of the GPL but violated the spirit - on the App Store, you can in practice do all the things that GPL is supposed to allow you, even if the letter of the GPL license isn't followed.
Installation Information (Score:2)
you can make the application available to anyone else who wants it by telling them where to download it
How does that satisfy the requirement for "Installation Information" (GPLv3) or "scripts used to control [...] installation of the executable" (GPLv2)? One still has to buy a $649 Mac and a $396 certificate (assuming four-year service life of an iOS device) to install it.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a completely bogus argument. When the FSF was founded, you needed a $10,000 Unix workstation to use GCC.
Re:Installation Information (Score:5, Funny)
And a time machine to get GCC from 2 years in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
the copyright holders of the gpl'd code can release it under no-gpl license on appstore if they wish.
Re: (Score:2)
you can make the application available to anyone else who wants it by telling them where to download it
How does that satisfy the requirement for "Installation Information" (GPLv3) or "scripts used to control [...] installation of the executable" (GPLv2)? One still has to buy a $649 Mac and a $396 certificate (assuming four-year service life of an iOS device) to install it.
I just downloaded Linux on a friend's computer, since I don't have one of my own. It seems to violate the GPL because I need to buy a $250 PC to install it!
I assume the FSF will give me a computer to run it, right? Or am I obligated to buy one of my own?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously, there should be a GPL agent model
Or just skip all the GPL drama entirely and use code based on BSD, MIT, Apache, etc., licenses instead.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In other words, you're fine with a platform tyrant banning certain types of software and certain licenses simply because they can.
The GPL came first. If the Apple store is incompatible with the GPL, then it is Apple that made it that way. It's not the fault of the FSF that some jerks 20 years later decided to be fascists.
The fact that you're happy about the situation does you no credit.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that the GPL would need specific accommodation makes it the incompatible party, regardless of what came first, second or last.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh nonsense. The "would need specific accomodation" requirement totally cuts both ways. The GPL would need to change to allow Apple to add their extra restrictions on binary distributions. So how is that not Apple's fault? Why do they even have such stupid restrictions? It's not like the iPhone supports side-loading in any case.
Re: (Score:3)
I would make some snarky comment about Apple fans' inability to grasp basic logic, but fortunately, Apple fan Old_dOg has helped me track down the incompatibility to section 7.3 of the Apple IOS developer's agreement [scribd.com], so clearly, not all Apple fans live in a logic-free zone. How you can possibly blame the FSF for section 7.3 of Apple's own document is beyond me. Nor has anyone yet offered any reasonable justification for the terms of section 7.3.
You're correct that Apple is entititled to run their app sto
Re: (Score:2)
Only an asshole could think that Apple not making source available is somehow to be taken as a huge negative thing that is morally wrong. Unless Google Play is different, it's quite possible that any GPL'd app is also illegal. Does Google Play include the source for such apps?
Re:Lock Out (Score:4, Insightful)
The app store is not incompatible with GPLv2 - there are several GPL apps on there, in fact. They even changed some of their terms and conditions to clarify the position in the wake of the VLC incident.
It *is* incompatible with GPLv3, but this is due to the specific design of the v3 licence. In other words, it was written specifically to be incompatible with such app stores and Tivo-type devices. Hardly the "platform tyrant's" fault there.
Apple did not "make it that way" - the FSF did, and they have their reasons for doing so. I can respect their position, even if I disagree with it.
I also find it interesting that you consider a corporation to be "fascist" if it has a service that is incompatible with a software licence that you happen to like. Does that mean that those who maintain the Linux kernel are also fascists because they won't include closed source code into it? I mean, it's incompatible, right?
Re:Lock Out (Score:4, Interesting)
I've bought plenty of GPL software through retailers who didn't have to supply me with the source code.
"Your license to each App Store Product is subject to the Licensed Application End User License Agreement set forth below, and you agree that such terms will apply unless the App Store Product is covered by a valid end user license agreement entered into between you and the licensor of that App Store Product (the "Application Provider"), in which case the Application Providerâ(TM)s end user license agreement will apply to that App Store Product ... You acknowledge that: you are acquiring the license to each Third-Party Product from the Application Provider"
Even if your argument was true, all they'd have to do is provide the ability to download the source code (which they get to charge for).
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly, the license terms of the app store do not override the license terms of the software included - while the app store may saying they are not responsible for X, that doesn't override the GPL requiring X, the GPL terms are still 100% in force.
Secondly, they would not just have to provide the ability to download the source, they would have to verify that the source provided matched the binary supplied, as well as all build and environment dependancies. All overhead for the app store provider specific
Re:Lock Out (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the source code they ban. It's their restrictions on how you can distribute binaries that's incompatible with the Apple store. You can't provide the binaries any other way. Which is incompatible with the GPLs requirement that you add no further restrictions, period.
Of course, those who are trying to blame the GPL for the incompatibility seem to misunderstand causality. It would require a time machine for any claim that the GPL is at fault here to stand. And it's not like Apple's new restrictio
That's the plan (Score:2)
"And that could put free software for end users very much at risk"... all the more reason for Apple and Microsoft to want it.
Or perhaps it creates a market opportunity (Score:3)
Let microsoft control software on their own hardware. There will be hardware vendors to fill the void, and I'm guessing that hardware will run something open source.
WebOS is already out there. Android too. And for generic computing, you have Linux, BSD, etc.
Nothing to be afraid of here. It's an opportunity. Perhaps those who want 'cheap hardware' will now be forced to finally look at the better OSs. It disgusts me that I work for a government contract, managing unix servers, where we waste so much money, time, and effort shovelling this unusable crap on our desktops.
Fearmongering (Score:5, Insightful)
tl;dr: "they are could be closed devices"
This typo is a good summary of the article.
Perfectly good vocalizing about the death of open systems.. except that it hasn't happened yet has it. Wake me up after the product launch.
waste of time (Score:2)
Re:waste of time (Score:5, Informative)
Metro is 100% locked, regardless of CPU architecture. Microsoft wants all future development to take place using Metro, and it isn't hard to see why.
Re: (Score:2)
They're both locked.
* Metro software cannot be acquired from any source but the Microsoft Store.
* Software cannot enter the Microsoft Store unless it is Metro.
Microsoft has Metro locked up from both ends, just like iOS.
Correct. I have long said that Google should be as anal as Apple with respect to vetting software that enters their store, and that'd be perfectly fine so long as the handsets don't enforce the store as a sole source.
Re: (Score:2)
Only for Win32 software. Metro apps are inside a walled garden [arstechnica.com] and much like iOS, local "side loading" is only allowed for developers. No distribution of software to others is possible outside the store (unless you wanna ensure your software is only ever used by developers.)
Windows RT is restricted by Win32 being completely unavailable to anyone but Microsoft.
Require all users to sign up as developers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not everyone shoud need to be a developer just to avoid a store. Ramming a store down people's throat benefits only the store owner.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't need to be a developer, you just need a developer license - getting [microsoft.com] which is about as hard as entering your Live ID info and clicking "OK". The only problem is that you have to do that every month to extend it to keep the apps running.
Re: (Score:2)
you know, exactly that happened with symbian when nokia disallowed instaling applications that weren't signed. maybe 0.1% of the people who signed up for dev accounts were actual developers - this actually lead to massive failures in uptime for symbiansigned, even though the situation was known in advance. it was a massive clusterfuck.
I'm pretty sure(99.99%) that installing to windows rt devices will need you to sign up for a developer cert(100 bucks a year or just lie that you're a new company and get it f
Re: (Score:2)
you have root to your win8(non-rt) installation. sideloading shouldn't be a problem. but then again, it might not be convinient.
however, total lockdown would lead to the route of killing the pc as pc and some another system would rise - so I don't think microsoft would be willing to go totally that route, for it would mean in the long run for them to be fucked.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything I've seen indicates that, even on x86, Metro apps can only be installed th
Pro affordable? (Score:2)
Just buy the correct version.
Except I don't think members of the general public will be able to afford the correct version. What MSRP do you expect for each of the two configurations?
ZOMG M$ might be like Apple :O (Score:3)
Speculation and fear mongering... Google could be more like FB. Slashdot could be more like reddit.
In particular, M$ is touting their enormous number of programs that run on Win8 (even if not in the Metro tiles).
There are enough bad things that might happen with some actual substance, why not worry about those.
meh.. whatever (Score:2)
I know exactly the legal text they would use. (Score:3, Insightful)
"2 (g)
The details vary between different licenses.. The most restrictive, those on things like the ASF specification that I used as an example, prohibit even using 'Identified Software' at any stage in the development process.
Translated roughly from legalese, this means that if your software is open source or even if you allow users to redistribute it, you aren't even allowed to put it on the same CD as a microsoft redistributable. If you use one of the affected SDKs or licensed specifications that takes the most restrictive variation then you are not only prohibited from releasing your source, or allowing others to redistribute your software, but you can't so much as use vim or emacs to edit your code or GCC to compile it. I also find almost the same clause in things like the Windows XP Embedded EULA, so if you make a product which depends upon XP Embedded then you are not able to open-source the application software that you wrote to run on it.
If Microsoft were to go full-on Evil Empire once again, this is exactly the clause they would probably adapt. All they'd need to do is pass a policy that no 'Identified Software' be permitted in the marketplace. A trivial legal change, and it would easily and effectively not merely bar open source software from the market (And thus Windows RT entirely, as well as use of the metro interface), but possibly even prohibit any Windows dev hoping for commercial success or any accessibility to the ARM mobile users from even utilising open-source development tools.
Anti-Microsoft Flame Douche (Score:3, Informative)
Mmmmm, unfounded speculation... (Score:3)
While Microsoft has never locked out apps based on license, it's not impossible that they might chose a more locked-down Apple-esque approach for Surface
It's not impossible that they'll kick a puppy for every copy of Windows 8 sold, either. Won't someone please think of the puppies?
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny you should mention puppies.
The whole torturing of puppies thing has been done before.
Edison could be viewed as inspiration of Gates and he engaged in an interesting big of FUD against Tesla that included electrocuting puppies.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsofts and Oranges (Score:2)
If you view it from a corporate perspective, why should they pass on making extra dollars on App Market subscriptions, cashing 30% of each downloaded app and be able to reject apps that could compe
Right... (Score:2)
FLOSS?! (Score:3)
For the love of god, please stop adding letters to the abbreviation of "open source"!
Re: (Score:2)
MS never even hinted they were dropping .Net, that's been rather successful FUD by certain other parties.
Whitelist of web sites (Score:2)
What else does HTML5 offer? It's easily sandboxed and thus compatible with an enforced channel
I don't see how the public will buy a device marketed for accessing web sites yet incapable of accessing web sites that the manufacturer has not whitelisted. It's not "Internet Explorer" if it specifically blocks the owner of a device from Exploring a given valid-HTML5 web site on the Internet. Or are you talking about using an origin whitelist to control access to new HTML5 features such as the Media Capture API, the File API, the application cache, and local storage?
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, I don't want a Windows that is "a device marketed for accessing web site
You have to want what enough others want (Score:2)
In effect, what the sandbox "allows for" can ultimately be whatever the company controlling the platform says it will be.
And the developers of things like Chrome OS and Boot to Gecko have to make their HTML5 APIs full-featured enough to run the kinds of applications that users expect to be able to run. Thus the computer is fully accessible to whatever JavaScript code you want to run on it. The only way to keep arbitrary applications off a web terminal is either A. to make certain parts of the device completely inaccessible to JavaScript or B. to whitelist sites allowed to use advanced JavaScript APIs. So far, Apple has chosen
Re: (Score:2)
...except it is no longer THEIR device once they sell it to ME.
Re: (Score:2)
They now demand of OEM vendors that UEFI protection can be disabled by the user but it's to be seen they apply the same freedom to their own Surface brand...
Maybe we'll see MS advertising their own boxes are the safest.
Re: (Score:3)
I meet people all the time that have "control" over their computer. Random files all over the desktop, no clue of what is going on, a web browser with 10+ toolbars which they have no idea how they got there, and so on. Ordinary people don't have control over their own hardware and/or software. It doesn't matter if it's Windows or Linux. Ordinary people want it to work, and 30 years of personal computing have not made that happen. The closest thing so far is an iPad.
There will of course always be some people