Daniel Pittman <daniel@rimspace.net> wrote:
More so, even, if Microsoft are not responsible for the restriction – if they specify that their key, or the OEM key, need to be present to run Windows, but do not restrict other keys being included.
...and I suspect that the vendors, also, will not be on the hook here: there are plenty of other hardware vendors, and their choice not to support Linux will not be substantially different to their choice not to support ARM operating systems: a business decision, allowing their competition to "take" that market share.
I'd be worried if most vendors were to take that option, however. In general, consumer systems are becoming increasingly locked-down (phones, tablets, now laptops and desktops too). Obviously, the freedom to run whatever kernel you want, including one compiled by you, is fundamental to Linux usage and development, hence it is vital to protect.
Personally, I would be finding a tame SuperMicro vendor in the region, who are extremely unlikely to stop selling Linux compatible systems, what with their business market using it and all.
We do need vendors who are committed to Linux, in addition to pursuing whatever can be gained through competition law. To play my part, I always choose hardware whenever I can for which the vendor claims Linux support (after doing the proper checking to ensure that it really is likely to work reliably). For example, my desktop machine is a workstation product certified to run Red Hat. I'm actually running Debian on it, but at least it is hardware that could be bought with Linux pre-installed. I think the people who are more likely to be affected by Microsoft's strategy, in the short term, are those running Windows who want to switch to Linux on their existing hardware, as well as Linux users who buy Windows machines for the purpose of installing Linux. Laptops would be particularly problematic.