Will this ruling have implications for secure booting?
A win in France for a Lenovo customer who didn't want bundled software on a laptop he wanted to run linux on appears to have ramifications for all of the EU. http://no.more.racketware.info/news/hardware-software-bundling-crumbles-fran... I wonder if that might extend to the boot process as well.
I used to work with a guy in Adelaide who had successfully achieved a refund for Windows bundled with his laptop, back in the late 1990's: http://b4.vu/g/toshiba.html In that case, however, Toshiba paid out $110 and didn't go to court, so I guess it didn't set a legal precedent. -Toby On 08/02/12 23:39, Allan Duncan wrote:
A win in France for a Lenovo customer who didn't want bundled software on a laptop he wanted to run linux on appears to have ramifications for all of the EU.
http://no.more.racketware.info/news/hardware-software-bundling-crumbles-fran...
I wonder if that might extend to the boot process as well. _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list luv-main@luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
-- .signature
I used to work with a guy in Adelaide who had successfully achieved a refund for Windows bundled with his laptop, back in the late 1990's: http://b4.vu/g/toshiba.html
In that case, however, Toshiba paid out $110 and didn't go to court, so I guess it didn't set a legal precedent.
There are quite a few cases of the "Windows Refund". It takes some time and effort through the courts for not much return, but it does establish a nice legal precedent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_refund Best wishes, Lev
Quoting Lev Lafayette (lev@levlafayette.com):
There are quite a few cases of the "Windows Refund". It takes some time and effort through the courts for not much return, but it does establish a nice legal precedent.
Exactly so. FWIW, I was the main fellow running that effort back in 1999.
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 14:23, <lev@levlafayette.com> wrote:
I used to work with a guy in Adelaide who had successfully achieved a refund for Windows bundled with his laptop, back in the late 1990's: http://b4.vu/g/toshiba.html
In that case, however, Toshiba paid out $110 and didn't go to court, so I guess it didn't set a legal precedent.
There are quite a few cases of the "Windows Refund". It takes some time and effort through the courts for not much return, but it does establish a nice legal precedent.
With Dell, the time and effort is minimal in my experience (at least in Europe), and it usually just requires an email after receiving the machine. I don't even bother arguing with the sales people about not installing Windows any more. I've received a lot of refunds over the years, for myself and for clients, the last one being in 2007 according to my records. My template for the request is as follows (copied from somewhere online): === Hello, I received the machine, the ordering went flawlessly. Thank you! :-) Unfortunately, it was not possible to order/buy the machine without Windows Vista. I do not need Windows Vista and would like to make use of my right to return it. I have declined the license and have formatted the hard disk. So, the conditions as designated in the Dell/Vista-license are fulfilled and I would like to get the purchase price for Windows Vista Home Basic refunded. Please inform me about how to proceed further. Thank you! === and the typical reply: === Dear Sir, Thank you for contacting Dell Online Customer Care regarding your refund for Vista. I have arranged for you to be refunded for Vista Home Base. You will be credited by € 35.05, please allow 5-7 working days for this to show in your account. === You can then proceed to request refunds for any bundled software (roxio creator, dvd software, etc). I have also received refunds for these. Marcus. -- Marcus Furlong
Allan Duncan <amd2345@fastmail.com.au> wrote:
I wonder if that might extend to the boot process as well.
This depends on the intricacies of E.U. competition law, of which I know nothing. I expect, however, that providing an option in the BIOS to deactivate the checking of signatures during boot would suffice to satisfy any requirement. I would also be interested in the implications for "locked-down" mobile devices: what position in the market would a mobile operating system vendor have to achieve before preventing purchasors from installing alternative operating systems on the hardware becomes anti-competitive? I don't know what the criteria are or whether any mobile device or software vendor could find itself in violation.
On Thu, 9 Feb 2012, Jason White <jason@jasonjgw.net> wrote:
I would also be interested in the implications for "locked-down" mobile devices: what position in the market would a mobile operating system vendor have to achieve before preventing purchasors from installing alternative operating systems on the hardware becomes anti-competitive? I don't know what the criteria are or whether any mobile device or software vendor could find itself in violation.
http://etbe.coker.com.au/2012/02/07/5-principles-backup/ It's not just the ability to install a different OS. The above blog post was mostly inspired by my experiences with a Sony Ericsson Xperia X10 phone. I have been reasonably happy with the OS that was preloaded and I would be happy to update to the new OS that Sony Ericsson are offering (Android 2.3). But I'm not happy to wipe out all my data which can't be backed up because the Android security policy prevents me getting root access for programs such as Titanium Backup. http://www.virginmobile.com.au/Shop/Rate-Plan-Details/9941/Fair-Go-19 As for what market share is necessary to be anti-competitive, Virgin is offering 4 different phones for a $0 fee on the $19 per month plan. I think that at least 3 of those should be modable. If the majority of the most affordable phones from a major telco can't be modded then it's anti- competitive. Also phones which offer unique hardware (EG the iPhone) or unique specs (EG the Samsung Galaxy Nexus) should be modable. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:
It's not just the ability to install a different OS. The above blog post was mostly inspired by my experiences with a Sony Ericsson Xperia X10 phone. I have been reasonably happy with the OS that was preloaded and I would be happy to update to the new OS that Sony Ericsson are offering (Android 2.3). But I'm not happy to wipe out all my data which can't be backed up because the Android security policy prevents me getting root access for programs such as Titanium Backup.
This (among other reasons) is why Jonathan Corbet has stated that mobile devices constitute a major challenge for Linux, and for software freedom more widely. The business practices surrounding this hardware have conventionally been very different from the (relative) openness associated with desktop and server systems. I think he is right in considering Android to be a step in the direction of greater openness, notwithstanding the limits of that move.
http://www.virginmobile.com.au/Shop/Rate-Plan-Details/9941/Fair-Go-19
As for what market share is necessary to be anti-competitive, Virgin is offering 4 different phones for a $0 fee on the $19 per month plan. I think that at least 3 of those should be modable. If the majority of the most affordable phones from a major telco can't be modded then it's anti- competitive.
That, as I interpret it, is how you would like the law to work, whereas my question was asking what the law is (under a reasonable interpretation of relevant statutes). Both questions are pertinent, of course, the latter to regulatory action or court proceedings, the former to law reform efforts in the event that current regulations are insufficient. There's a new tablet-style device on the way that runs KDE Plasma Active. Though not a "phone", it does belong to the category of mobile devices which has been receiving heightened attention in recent years. Apart from Android, Linux has had limited presence in this space, despite MeeGo and related efforts. Of course, Android is a very large and significant exception to that generalization.
On Thursday 09 February 2012 16:06:18 Russell Coker wrote:
Also phones which offer unique hardware (EG the iPhone) or unique specs (EG the Samsung Galaxy Nexus) should be modable.
FWIW I believe the Samsung Galaxy Nexus bootloader can be simply unlocked via the "fastboot" program in the Android SDK (as it's a Nexus family phone). This means that those of us with GN's which have shipped with Android 4.0.x builds from Samsung (not Google) can (if we want) reflash with the factory builds of Google's Android 4.0.x build for the GN. cheers, Chris -- Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC This email may come with a PGP signature as a file. Do not panic. For more info see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPGP
On Thursday 09 February 2012 16:06:18 Russell Coker wrote:
But I'm not happy to wipe out all my data which can't be backed up because the Android security policy prevents me getting root access for programs such as Titanium Backup.
With Android 4 you can now backup your device directly with adb, without (apparently) needing to unlock or root it. I backed up my stock Galaxy Nexus with: adb backup -shared -apk -all -nosystem Now, of course, I've not tried to restore it yet anywhere.. ;-) Might try in the emulator that comes with the SDK. -- Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC This email may come with a PGP signature as a file. Do not panic. For more info see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPGP
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012, Chris Samuel <chris@csamuel.org> wrote:
On Thursday 09 February 2012 16:06:18 Russell Coker wrote:
But I'm not happy to wipe out all my data which can't be backed up because the Android security policy prevents me getting root access for programs such as Titanium Backup.
With Android 4 you can now backup your device directly with adb, without (apparently) needing to unlock or root it.
So the hundreds of millions of people with Android phones only have to upgrade to Android 4.0 (which may be impossible) and wipe their data once before being able to backup. :( Also is adb easy to install yet? Last time I checked installing it required installing i386 libraries first. This will probably be easy in Debian/Wheezy, but in Squeeze it's not a good option.
I backed up my stock Galaxy Nexus with:
adb backup -shared -apk -all -nosystem
Now, of course, I've not tried to restore it yet anywhere.. ;-)
Might try in the emulator that comes with the SDK.
Being able to restore to a similar device isn't enough. Ideally you want to extract the data to different devices. It's not as if I'm about to find an OS/2 machine to access data that I backed up in the mid 90's. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Saturday 11 February 2012 11:56:57 Russell Coker wrote:
So the hundreds of millions of people with Android phones only have to upgrade to Android 4.0 (which may be impossible) and wipe their data once before being able to backup. :(
I don't know, you'll need to find an Android expert.
Also is adb easy to install yet? Last time I checked installing it required installing i386 libraries first. This will probably be easy in Debian/Wheezy, but in Squeeze it's not a good option.
Adb was fairly easy with Arch Linux, it came along with the Android SDK I installed on my ancient Pentium 4 laptop. I can run Eclipse, Chromium and Android in an emulator in 768MB of RAM under LXDE. It's not particularly fast, but it is usable. :-)
I backed up my stock Galaxy Nexus with:
adb backup -shared -apk -all -nosystem
Now, of course, I've not tried to restore it yet anywhere.. ;-)
Might try in the emulator that comes with the SDK.
Being able to restore to a similar device isn't enough. Ideally you want to extract the data to different devices.
I don't think I said that it was hardware dependent. But software wise yes, you need Android 4. Such are the perils of an effectively mostly-closed source operating system. But the future of open source on phones as a viable mass-market platform is pretty much dead I think, you can thank Nokia and Intel for that for constantly chopping and changing (as well as Google for their licensing decisions). cheers, Chris -- Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC This email may come with a PGP signature as a file. Do not panic. For more info see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPGP
On 11 February 2012 12:29, Chris Samuel <chris@csamuel.org> wrote:
On Saturday 11 February 2012 11:56:57 Russell Coker wrote:
So the hundreds of millions of people with Android phones only have to upgrade to Android 4.0 (which may be impossible) and wipe their data once before being able to backup. :(
I don't know, you'll need to find an Android expert.
So far the only time I have had my data wiped when upgrading my Android phone was when that upgrade involved a new phone. I think the upgrade process might vary considerably depending on the manufacturer/model of the phone. -- Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au>
participants (9)
-
Allan Duncan -
Brian May -
Chris Samuel -
Jason White -
lev＠levlafayette.com -
Marcus Furlong -
Rick Moen -
Russell Coker -
Toby Corkindale