Page 1 of 3

Windows is standard

Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2020 7:28 pm
by austanss
[This thread is going to be a rant about how Microsoft has a monopoly on the PC market, and what they've been doing to secure their monopoly.]

Windows is the standard.

Microsoft is a greedy company. The efforts they've made in anti-competitive practices is outrageous. And I don't know how US Congress hasn't put Microsoft on the burner the same way they have with Facebook/Twitter.

AARD
If you didn't know, back in the 1980s, Microsoft did not have the market share in operating systems. Their DOS, MS-DOS, was falling behind, in comparison to Digital Research's DOS, DR-DOS. Obviously, Microsoft being a company, did not appreciate this. But the things they did were terrible.

When Windows came out, Digital Research didn't have an equivalent, no competitor. And since Windows was based on DOS, Windows ran perfectly fine on DR-DOS, so Digital Research didn't care. Yet Microsoft was salty about it's lower market share in the OS market. So, Microsoft decided to be a fucking **** about it. They decided, "hey, let's make Windows only work on MS-DOS, and spit out an error on DR-DOS". Not only did this make people who wanted to use Windows have to use MS-DOS over DR-DOS, Microsoft pissed on Digital Research even more and tricked the consumer into thinking that it was an issue with DR-DOS, thus driving Digital Research out of business.

EFI
Microsoft had a big influencing hand in the development of EFI. Not only does EFI use the PE executable format that Microsoft created, but it also created Secure Boot, aka Windows Only. I could count on one hand how many OSes boot with Secure Boot enabled. And how do you get a Secure Boot certificate? Pay Microsoft for it. And the average consumer will have a hard time disabling Secure Boot, or find it sketchy and not do it at all. This is extremely anti-competitive, and Linux is feeling it the most.

And Microsoft, being the corporation that they are, pays almost every computer manufacturer, and almost every motherboard manufacturer, to preinstall Windows and enable Secure Boot. This is really unfriendly to competition, and definitely breaks anti-trust laws. But laws are laws, and laws have to be enforced, and no one is enforcing them.


So here we are today. The average consumer who buys a computer is extremely turned off by the idea of using anything but Windows, students in school are taught how to use Microsoft products, and Windows is the most vulnerable operating system due to its popularity and everyone is at risk. This is what happens when you have a monopoly.

Your thoughts?

Re: Windows is standard

Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2020 7:52 pm
by kzinti
Not trying to defend Microsoft here or anything... But the EFI certificate thing that people keep repeating doesn't match my experience.

I can generate a certificate myself and load it in my EFI firmware to load my signed OS. There is nothing forcing me to have a certificate signed by Microsoft.

It is true that "Windows Certified PCs" come with the Microsoft certificate pre-loaded in the firmware, and it could be argued that this is unfair. But you and vendors can add other certificates to the firmware.

Re: Windows is standard

Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2020 8:13 pm
by bzt
In general I agree. However there are some (historical) points where you're mistaken.
rizxt wrote:Microsoft is a greedy company. The efforts they've made in anti-competitive practices is outrageous. And I don't know how US Congress hasn't put Microsoft on the burner the same way they have with Facebook/Twitter.
The real question here is, how come that the US haven't sued Facebook already under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890? It literally killed all of its competitors (MySpace, Google Plus etc.), yet it got away with some ridiculous hearings instead of a lawsuit???
rizxt wrote:If you didn't know, back in the 1980s, Microsoft did not have the market share in operating systems. Their DOS, MS-DOS, was falling behind
What makes you think that? It was preinstalled on every IBM PC. MS-DOS was literally the first OEM OS for IBM PCs.
rizxt wrote:When Windows came out, Digital Research didn't have an equivalent, no competitor.
Not true, there were lots of competitors.
  • Digital Research had PC-GEM,
  • there was OS/2 from IBM (which could run Windows executables natively BTW),
  • Quarterdeck's Desqview/X,
  • Visi Corp's Visi ON,
  • even Commodore's GEOS was ported to the PC
  • etc. etc. etc.
rizxt wrote:Windows is the most vulnerable operating system due to its popularity and everyone is at risk.
Plus FBI mandates that every US company must put backdoors in their systems, so all proprietary US products are vulnerable by design. The problem is, not only the law-enforcement officers have access to those backdoors. And for example EFI Secure Boot Golden Key has been leaked too :-)

Cheers,
bzt

Re: Windows is standard

Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2020 8:52 pm
by foliagecanine
rizxt wrote:And I don't know how US Congress hasn't put Microsoft on the burner the same way they have with Facebook/Twitter.
Well, they sort of have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... osoft_Corp.
rizxt wrote:Not only does EFI use the PE executable format that Microsoft created
As far as I know, there is no patent on the PE format, so I don't see much wrong with this. Would it be any different if they used ELF? Either way you could probably make a PE that loads an ELF.
rizxt wrote:Secure Boot... I could count on one hand how many OSes boot with Secure Boot enabled.
As far as I know, most of the major OSes (every modern Linux kernel too) are signed. Also, you can load your own certificates if you wanted, or disable it entirely in many cases. I've never seen a computer so far that has secure boot forced with no way to load custom certificates.

However, I agree that the AARD was stupid. They often take other people's paid software, remake it, and package it with their OS to put other companies out of business.

However, Microsoft isn't the only company doing these kinds of practices.
My old Samsung phone for instance would not let you load any OS besides its "signed" versions. Even to root it, I had to load a signed old (vulnerable) version of the OS just to gain root access. I still can't go back to the newest version without losing root privelages.
Apple won't let you put pretty much anything non-Apple branded on your Apple devices. It's a closed ecosystem.
rizxt wrote:Windows is the most vulnerable operating system due to its popularity and everyone is at risk.
Any "most popular" operating system will be attacked by malware. Android for instance constantly is dealing with new threats. The smaller the marketshare, the less profitable your attack will be.
Windows in particular is vulnerable because it is A) so old and B) must support old software, so they can't just change everything and start anew lest they risk losing customers.

Its gigantic software library is really what makes it the most popular OS, since their favorite game, program, etc. will be guaranteed to run on Windows. Manufacturers of devices and chips will of course test it with Windows to see if it works, and will leave communities like the Linux community to figure it out themselves.

What I really don't like is how they've gone down the data/advertisement route. Notice that there are advertisements on the Windows lock screen? You HAVE to have a Microsoft account to use Windows now. You can't even stop them from sending "basic" diagnostic data to MS. THIS is outrageous and really capitalizing on their monopoly. Also, their attempts to retake the browser marketshare are stupid as well. Granted, new Edge is much better than old Edge which was much better than IE, but still. I think the real reason they try to get you to use Edge is that data/advertisement thing. Edge -> Bing -> "Promoted" searches -> $

Those were just some thoughts I had on the subject.

Re: Windows is standard

Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:33 pm
by austanss
foliagecanine wrote:
rizxt wrote:Microsoft is a greedy company. The efforts they've made in anti-competitive practices is outrageous. And I don't know how US Congress hasn't put Microsoft on the burner the same way they have with Facebook/Twitter.
The real question here is, how come that the US haven't sued Facebook already under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890? It literally killed all of its competitors (MySpace, Google Plus etc.), yet it got away with some ridiculous hearings instead of a lawsuit???
Facebook does have real competitors. Twitter, Reddit, Parler are the top 3 big ones. Not much of a monopoly there.
foliagecanine wrote:
rizxt wrote:Secure Boot... I could count on one hand how many OSes boot with Secure Boot enabled.
As far as I know, most of the major OSes (every modern Linux kernel too) are signed. Also, you can load your own certificates if you wanted, or disable it entirely in many cases. I've never seen a computer so far that has secure boot forced with no way to load custom certificates.
Loading your own certificates is just as difficult and as sketchy as disabling Secure Boot. The fact that you can do it doesn't change that average Joey over here doesn't know how to do that and doesn't feel like doing it.

Also, I've never been able to boot any Linux distribution with Secure Boot enabled and with stock certificates.

My total computer sample size: 5
My total OEM sample size: 3

As well, the case you mentioned. The ruling was overturned, and had no effect on Microsoft.

Re: Windows is standard

Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2020 10:11 pm
by eekee
I'm not arguing in Microsoft's favour, they're a horrible company. And rizxt, thanks for sharing your data on secure-booting Linux. However, there are some junky arguments in this thread.

Education: Does anyone else remember when Apple gave big discounts for education? I think it lasted over a decade. Where's Apple's market share?

Facebook: When it was new, it just blew away Livejournal and Myspace because it was a far better tool. It was a revolution in online social networking. Twitter and others came along years later. They gained ground because they are different; they fill somewhat different roles in the social networking ecosystem. Google Plus came along very much later still, after Facebook was already indomitable. Network effects (look that up) mean G+ would have to have a huge advantage over Facebook in some way for enough people to make the switch, and honestly if it had, you'd be hating on G+ now instead of FB. In any case, FB's days may be numbered because younger people now don't want a one-stop-shop for all their social networking needs; they want to split things between Instagram, Twitter, and other relatively specialised services.

Another example of network effects is Google Maps. It too is a revolutionary first in its field. Now, if you want to find a business near you, you have to use Google Maps because people just aren't bothering to put their stuff on OpenStreetMap, Here.com, Yell.com, Bing Maps (I think), or any of the many other map services. Network effects sustain these things as if they were natural monopolies, and you cannot escape without costing yourself time and effort.

I don't know if PE was specifically a bone of contention here, but after all my years of trying to love and work with Linux & related "freedom" software, I have no expectations of PE being any harder to work with than ELF.

In fact, even my limited experiments with Multiboot demonstrate the evils of network effects: Syslinux's multiboot module couldn't boot operating systems I tried it with. They booted fine with Grub. It was quite possibly the framebuffer info where Grub does not quite meet the Multiboot standard. Shall we write furious rants against Grub, claiming they deliberately sabotaged the standard knowing everyone would have to work with them and not other bootloaders? The case could be made! ;)

Re: Windows is standard

Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2020 3:30 am
by bzt
rizxt wrote:
bzt wrote:The real question here is, how come that the US haven't sued Facebook already under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890? It literally killed all of its competitors (MySpace, Google Plus etc.), yet it got away with some ridiculous hearings instead of a lawsuit???
@foliagecanine did not wrote that, I did. Please be precise.
rizxt wrote:Facebook does have real competitors. Twitter, Reddit, Parler are the top 3 big ones. Not much of a monopoly there.
You must be kidding. Twitter - is a microblog, Reddit - more like a forum, Parler - WTF never heard of it, that's how top that is. You should have mentioned Instagram or WhatsApp instead, oh wait...
Antitrust committee says I'm right, FB do has monopoly. Now that finally the clown is going to leave the white house soon, I hope those IT giants will get some serious lawsuits, Google and Apple too. They all deserve it!
foliagecanine wrote:As far as I know, most of the major OSes (every modern Linux kernel too) are signed.
You're wrong. Exactly ZERO Linux kernels are signed, and specially not with any of the MS keys. There's an overcomplicated two-stage boot strap process, where the first loader (typically shim) is signed by MS, which then loads GRUB, which in turn then loads the Linux kernel. This isn't working fluently, there are constant glitches over and over again. Even MS has constant troubles with Secure Boot (see here for example).
foliagecanine wrote:Also, you can load your own certificates if you wanted
No, you can't. You would need to install a certificate that's signed with the platform key (PK). You can't do that because you don't have access to the manufacturer's PK.
Some machines allow non-PK-signed KEK keys, but that's absolutely not common place (and I bet the number of such computers are shrinking drastically and rapidly).
foliagecanine wrote:I've never seen a computer so far that has secure boot forced
According to MS, all ARM-based Windows computers must force Secure boot. "For logo-certified Windows RT 8.1 and Windows RT PCs, Secure Boot is required to be configured so that it cannot be disabled."
rizxt wrote:Loading your own certificates is just as difficult and as sketchy as disabling Secure Boot. The fact that you can do it doesn't change that average Joey over here doesn't know how to do that and doesn't feel like doing it.
Exactly! Well said! Not to mention that a sneaky firmware update can remove the "disable Secure Boot" option any time and there's nothing you can do about it.

Cheers,
bzt

Re: Windows is standard

Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2020 6:02 am
by iansjack
Just one correction:

In the '80s OS/2 was a joint enterprise by Miscrosoft and IBM. It's failure was not a result of poor marketing, simply the fact that Windows provided what people wanted.

And this is very true of the history of Microsoft; they have not succeeded because of unfair practices (well, no more than any other software company) more because they read the market correctly (mostly). That's capitalism for you.

As for the current day, Microsoft are not the bad guys. There's one huge hardware/software company - bigger than Microsoft or IBM - that ties their systems down far more severely than Microsoft do. That's after they spent decades stealing other people's work.

Re: Windows is standard

Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2020 7:27 am
by Solar
iansjack wrote:...they have not succeeded because of unfair practices (well, no more than any other software company) more because they read the market correctly (mostly). That's capitalism for you.
No. Just... no.

Microsoft literally came quite late to every single invention / idea they ever marketed. There is nothing (and I challenge you to prove me otherwise!) that Microsoft ever brought to the table other than ideas bought up / stolen elsewhere, business smarts, and marketing (which I admit they had, second to none). Technology-wise, Microsoft has set back the computing world at least two decades.

That is capitalism for you.

Re: Windows is standard

Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2020 7:45 am
by iansjack
That doesn't contradict anything I said. I never said they were innovaters (any more than Apple were) just that they read the market correctly.

The idea that Microsoft rose from a two-person nothing of a company to what they became purely because of unfair practices is on a par with suggesting that Trump won the 2020 election.

Re: Windows is standard

Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:40 am
by austanss
Okay, not trying to get too political here. This thread is specifically about Microsoft as an unfair company, not the whole system of government and the antitrust laws.

Re: Windows is standard

Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:43 am
by austanss
bzt wrote:
rizxt wrote:
bzt wrote:The real question here is, how come that the US haven't sued Facebook already under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890? It literally killed all of its competitors (MySpace, Google Plus etc.), yet it got away with some ridiculous hearings instead of a lawsuit???
@foliagecanine did not wrote that, I did. Please be precise.t
Sorry, my mouse is a little funky, I don't know how I messed that up.
foliagecanine wrote:I've never seen a computer so far that has secure boot forced
According to MS, all ARM-based Windows computers must force Secure boot. "For logo-certified Windows RT 8.1 and Windows RT PCs, Secure Boot is required to be configured so that it cannot be disabled."
rizxt wrote:Loading your own certificates is just as difficult and as sketchy as disabling Secure Boot. The fact that you can do it doesn't change that average Joey over here doesn't know how to do that and doesn't feel like doing it.
Exactly! Well said! Not to mention that a sneaky firmware update can remove the "disable Secure Boot" option any time and there's nothing you can do about it.
If I got a computer like that it would be deemed dead on arrival by me and I would instantly return it.
Also, if I got a firmware update like that my computer would virtually be bricked, as I have Linux installed exclusively and the BIOS update (or downgrade) process for this computer is extremely Windows-reliant.
Although, it is unlikely as my computer is rather old and most likely won't receive many BIOS updates, probably not even for a UEFI revision.

Re: Windows is standard

Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2020 9:13 am
by Solar
iansjack wrote:That doesn't contradict anything I said. I never said they were innovaters (any more than Apple were) just that they read the market correctly.

The idea that Microsoft rose from a two-person nothing of a company to what they became purely because of unfair practices is on a par with suggesting that Trump won the 2020 election.
It all depends on what you consider "unfair". They (mostly) stayed within the bounds of US law. That doesn't stop various tactics which I subsumised as "business smarts" as being unfair in my book.

But we'd had that discussion on this forum, many times. Just... don't go around and whitewash Microsoft of being an utter bully in the market and leaning heavily on any competiton wherever they could. That would be like saying Trump was the most beloved POTUS of all time. 8)

Re: Windows is standard

Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2020 10:30 am
by Korona
Regarding the OP: Windows not nearly as prevalent as it used to be. It also heavily depends on the field/industry that you're in. In the group that I am currently working in, nobody is using Windows (we are more-or-less evenly split between MacOS and Linux).

Re: Windows is standard

Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2020 4:34 pm
by foliagecanine
bzt wrote:
foliagecanine wrote:As far as I know, most of the major OSes (every modern Linux kernel too) are signed.
You're wrong. Exactly ZERO Linux kernels are signed, and specially not with any of the MS keys.
Really? I managed to load a Linux Distro via USB on a Secure-boot locked computer. One time I managed to lock myself out of that kernel version because I was trying to load keys for VirtualBox or something. It would load GRUB just fine, but when GRUB tried to load the Linux kernel, it said that that kernel wasn't signed. Loading the version before that fixed it and let me boot.
Is there another reason this happened that I am not aware of (that would not require signed Linux kernels)?