Linux users file EU complaint against Microsoft (Reuters) [LWN.net]

The Spanish association Hispalinux has filed a complaint against Microsoft to the European Commission, Reuters reports. "In its 14-page complaint, Hispalinux said Windows 8 contained an "obstruction mechanism" called UEFI Secure Boot that controls the start-up of the computer and means users must seek keys from Microsoft to install another operating system. The group said it was "a de facto technological jail for computer booting systems ... making Microsoft's Windows platform less neutral than ever"." (Thanks to Pat Read)

(Log in to post comments)

Linux users file EU complaint against Microsoft (Reuters)

Posted Mar 26, 2013 21:43 UTC (Tue) by s0f4r (subscriber, #52284) [Link]

Seems misguided - win8 certification requires all sorts of things that require the end user to be able to disable secure boot, upload their own keys, remove vendor keys etc..

Linux users file EU complaint against Microsoft (Reuters)

Posted Mar 26, 2013 21:52 UTC (Tue) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]

At least one of the comments on one of the stories I've seen, the poster claimed that he had been unable to install linux, because he couldn't get the install CD to boot.

As it was a laptop bought for work, that required linux, it was obviously a problem...

And I gather the magic incantation to disable secure boot isn't easy, or consistent. Maybe he can't disable it because he can't find out how?

Cheers,
Wol

Linux users file EU complaint against Microsoft (Reuters)

Posted Mar 26, 2013 22:17 UTC (Tue) by s0f4r (subscriber, #52284) [Link]

I'm certainly interested to see how vendors (the BIOS/device ones) actually cope with the win8 requirements and leave documentation for the end user around that explains how they can install a different OS.

I just did this to a Sony system last week, and finding and disabling secure boot was trivial. There's really not much to it.

That makes the question: Should it be "one-button" to install a new OS? I somewhat doubt that is a valid argument in this case.

Linux users file EU complaint against Microsoft (Reuters)

Posted Mar 26, 2013 22:20 UTC (Tue) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

Many of the cases where users have claimed this have been nothing to do with Secure Boot - instead, they've been trying to boot old versions of Linux with poor UEFI support. I haven't yet seen a single credible report of a user being unable to disable Secure Boot on a system.

Linux users file EU complaint against Microsoft (Reuters)

Posted Mar 26, 2013 22:59 UTC (Tue) by s0f4r (subscriber, #52284) [Link]

This has been my experience, unfortunately, this is going to dilute the discussion :^(

Linux users file EU complaint against Microsoft (Reuters)

Posted Mar 27, 2013 1:17 UTC (Wed) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link]

> I haven't yet seen a single credible report of a user being unable to disable Secure Boot on a system.
On an x86-64 system, that is.

Linux users file EU complaint against Microsoft (Reuters)

Posted Mar 27, 2013 1:23 UTC (Wed) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

Full marks for ignoring context.

Linux users file EU complaint against Microsoft (Reuters)

Posted Mar 27, 2013 8:46 UTC (Wed) by pjm (subscriber, #2080) [Link]

(I thought it was a reasonable clarification to make, and shouldn't be met with sarcasm: UEFI secure boot is of interest beyond the specifics of the original article.)

Linux users file EU complaint against Microsoft (Reuters)

Posted Mar 27, 2013 9:13 UTC (Wed) by pjm (subscriber, #2080) [Link]

As I've just defended a statement of the obvious on the grounds that not all readers will be intimitely familiar with these matters, I'll similarly point out that mjg59 would be the prototypical example of someone intimitely familiar with these matters — which may be why he wasn't impressed at what might come across as trying to teach one's grandmother to suck eggs.

Linux users file EU complaint against Microsoft (Reuters)

Posted Mar 26, 2013 22:33 UTC (Tue) by russell (subscriber, #10458) [Link]

not misguided on the arm platform. win8 certification requires that it can't be disabled.

Linux users file EU complaint against Microsoft (Reuters)

Posted Mar 26, 2013 22:50 UTC (Tue) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

There's a large number of vendors in the ARM market shipping locked-down devices. Microsoft are, currently, nowhere near the largest of them. The only difference I'm really able to see there is that Microsoft impose this requirement on OEMs, but even then you'd think that the only people with standing would be the OEMs.

Linux users file EU complaint against Microsoft (Reuters)

Posted Mar 27, 2013 4:28 UTC (Wed) by s0f4r (subscriber, #52284) [Link]

The original article mentions only x86 being part of the complaint filed with the EU, not arm.

Linux users file EU complaint against Microsoft (Reuters)

Posted Mar 27, 2013 22:21 UTC (Wed) by geofft (subscriber, #59789) [Link]

Can you file a complaint against Apple too? I would really like to boot Linux on my iPad. I don't think I even know anyone with a Surface.

Linux users file EU complaint against Microsoft (Reuters)

Posted Mar 27, 2013 7:45 UTC (Wed) by jejb (subscriber, #6654) [Link]

> Seems misguided - win8 certification requires all sorts of things that require the end user to be able to disable secure boot, upload their own keys, remove vendor keys etc..

First, does anyone have a pointer to the actual complaint? I can't seem to find it on the web.

Based surmise, the news articles all report the complaint as being an "obstruction mechanism". The test for this is whether the mechanism has a significant impact on the ability of the average person in the street to perform whatever action they need to perform to avoid the situation being anti-competitive. This means it's not a sufficient defence to say a way of disabling the mechanism exists and a bunch of Linux engineers can find it by poking around in the UEFI menus. The average person on the street who wants to install or try out Linux must be able to find it as well.

By analogy, it's like the Hitch Hiker's Guide situation of the plans to demolish Arthur Dent's house being on display. You can say they're "on display", but if they're on display in a locked lavatory in a disused basement with a sign on the door saying beware of the leopard, that rises to the level of obstruction and means they're not really on display at all.

Linux users file EU complaint against Microsoft (Reuters)

Posted Mar 27, 2013 8:58 UTC (Wed) by jbv (guest, #66170) [Link]

ARTHUR DENT:
It's not exactly a noted social venue is it? And even if you had popped in on the off chance that some raving bureaucrat wanted to knock your house down, the plans weren't immediately obvious to the eye were they?

MISTER PROSSER:
That depends where you were looking.

ARTHUR DENT:
I eventually had to go down to the cellar!

MISTER PROSSER:
That's the display department.

ARTHUR DENT:
With a torch!

MISTER PROSSER:
The lights, had… probably gone.

ARTHUR DENT:
So had the stairs!

MISTER PROSSER:
Well you found the notice didn't you?

ARTHUR DENT:
Yes. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet, stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying “Beware of the Leopard”. Ever thought of going into advertising?

Linux users file EU complaint against Microsoft (Reuters)

Posted Mar 27, 2013 11:21 UTC (Wed) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link]

The average person on the street who wants to install or try out Linux must be able to find it as well.

Not only that, in this context it is obstruction if the user is required to do anything other than put the installation media into DVD drive or USB port and reboot. People not already familiar with installing Linux or other non-bundled OS will be put off, if they are required to change BIOS settings, which also might be accompanied with scary messages like "Are you sure you want to disable secure boot?" ("What? no, I want to be secure, better dump this Linux disk before it infects my computer.")

Linux users file EU complaint against Microsoft (Reuters)

Posted Mar 27, 2013 22:30 UTC (Wed) by geofft (subscriber, #59789) [Link]

> The average person on the street who wants to install or try out Linux must be able to find it as well.

The average person on the street is not going to compile their own kernel; they're going to download a halfway-popular distro from somewhere. (Honestly, anyone who can figure out `make menuconfig` can figure out the UEFI menus.) So the question is whether Microsoft _signs_ all the halfway-popular distros' Linux kernels / bootloaders, not whether Secure Boot can be disabled. And in practice, they have signed those bootloaders, so I'm not sure what the problem is here.

That said, if Microsoft refused to sign Linux kernels, that would definitely be grounds in my eyes for a serious antitrust complaint.

Linux users file EU complaint against Microsoft (Reuters)

Posted Mar 27, 2013 13:21 UTC (Wed) by redden0t8 (guest, #72783) [Link]

I doubt anything is going to come of this directly, but complaints like this are nevertheless important.

The more scrutiny there is from the regulatory bodies, the less likely Microsoft is to try taking this further (ie blacklisting Linux bootloaders at the first sign of them being used in malware).