What is Digg?133 Comments
- notque, on 07/25/2008, -9/+70Microsoft has been tampering for a long time. Corporations will make decisions based on if breaking the law will make them more money than not breaking the law, and as you've seen with Microsoft, it pays to break the law. It's a cost benefit analysis, and we all lose.
- inactive, on 07/25/2008, -7/+47Never would have guessed!
- mephyt, on 07/25/2008, -4/+36Is it incredibly surprising that something like this happens on a regular basis though?
I wouldn't really be surprised at this point if Microsoft would more directly attempt to tank Canonical... - lemur, on 07/25/2008, -19/+50I still think the Foxconn kerfuffle was merely due to incompetent programming and lack of interest in supporting Linux. For example, let us suppose that they outsourced an unknown programming team to write their ACPI BIOS, which shipped to them broken code. During the QA, they kept sending it back saying, "Make feature A work... make feature B work...", so due to their incompetence they painstaking coded a series of exceptions to address each case, every time using a simple hard coded hack for each feature for each Microsoft OS until it could get certified for those systems. In the process somebody tried to map something out for a specific Linux build, leaving it in place because it "sorta" worked. Since Foxconn didn't QA the Linux implementation, they never bothered to send it back.
- ToadLeg, on 07/25/2008, -7/+35http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Configuratio ...
I think botching the ACPI tables is like giving someone a wrong address for your own house. They would have to be so grossly incompetent that they cannot properly locate the structures in the hardware that they created.
How could they give good directions for several versions of Windows, with contingencies to make sure it works, and then give bad directions, several times hidden in different ways, to Linux? It's the same hardware, and it wouldn't matter what OS or version of Linux was running on it. The addresses for the hardware would stay the same. - mCanada, on 07/25/2008, -7/+33BG's email is proof that this goes right to the top. This is clear anti-competitive behavior. I think legal action is a last resort, but I think that email is good evidence that this is probably wide spread. If something isn't done, this could seriously hamper the FOSS movement. To the average westerner who can afford 200 dollar Vista licenses this might be "less of an issue" (relatively), but what really enrages me is how many people in developing nations will be shut out of FOSS because of these tactics? Foxconn must be boycott and boycott HARD. - NOW
- mst3kcrow, on 07/25/2008, -3/+26Did you even RTFA? ACPI is an open standard. It would be like buying 10W30 oil spiked with a particular chemical in it which ***** up your car only because it's a Ford.
- notque, on 07/25/2008, -6/+29Why is it surprising? It happens in every corporation.
A corporations job is to maximize profit. If the fines for breaking the law are less than the benefit to breaking it, a corporation is legally bound to break it. They have share holders, and their job is to provide them a return on their investment.
This happens in every industry, every field. When you have joint stock entities/corporations instead of partnerships where people are actually held liable for their actions, then this is what you get.
That's what limited liability does. You can't jail a corporation for blowing away the environment, or breaking the law. Only fine them.
Well, the people in power see to it that fines are kept to a minimum.
So, not only is it not surprising, it's exactly how you'd expect the system to work. - TheZorch, on 07/26/2008, -3/+22I'm really not surprised at all. Microsoft has been trying to fight OSS even though it appears they are trying to get in bed with them at the same time recently. They fought a proxy war against Linux for a few years through SCO, and have made patent violation claims time and time again without presenting any evidence. Am I shocked that this happened and that Microsoft is involved, no not at all. It only add further evidence on top of a mountain of existing evidence that the corporation has grown too big and too corrupt and its time for them to learn some humility.
Proprietary software in my opinion doesn't deserve copyright protection or patents. The actual CODE are it was written should be protected, not what the code DOES, thus you can have different code that does the same thing. Basically to be protected by copyright software must be open source only or it can't be legally protected. - rtaibah, on 05/22/2009, -8/+27Well when that E-mail 10 years ago has Bill Gates complaining about ACPI and how Linux can benefit from it, and then toys around with the idea of inhibiting it on other OS'es. 10 years later we find a company selling an ACPI compliant mobo that inhibits Linux, that does raise questions....
- Stemp, on 07/25/2008, -2/+19Microsoft has the largest market share IN THE DESKTOP.
DIgg is using Linux (Debian if I remember right).
So you are a Linux user. - gridbread, on 07/25/2008, -4/+21Proprietary sucks so much ass, I hate this *****.
- billessig, on 07/25/2008, -3/+19I'm so glad I'm smarter than you.
- AmyVernon, on 07/25/2008, -3/+19seriously. Microsoft gaming the system? shock!
- billessig, on 07/25/2008, -0/+16"barely uses an operating system" I'm a network administrator. You're a moron.
- shotgunefx, on 07/25/2008, -0/+13Well, you could take two minutes to verify it yourself (like I did), OTOH, shoddy of the writer to note cite the evidence
Comes v. Microsoft
PX 3020 Email re: ACPI Extensions
http://iowa.gotthefacts.org/011607/3000/PX03020.pd ... - norman619, on 07/26/2008, -0/+12Good thing I don't buy Foxconn products.
- DigitalPioneer, on 07/26/2008, -1/+12Driving up competition? No... If it were a matter of competition, it would be a good thing. But microsoft doesn't try to BEAT competition, they try to eliminate competition. One is productive, useful, encourages innovation and lower prices; the other is a monopolistic practice that cripples innovation and creates insane prices. When did you last look at the price of microsoft's software? There's nothing 'lower prices' about that.
- shakin, on 07/25/2008, -2/+13The problem is that they seem to have purposely made it not work with Linux. If they simply implemented ACPI properly there would be no need to check to see if the OS is Linux, only perhaps some older versions of Windows. XP, Vista, Windows 2008, and Linux should all use the same code.
- dcbebop, on 07/26/2008, -4/+14Whoa whoa whoa, let's not all jump to conclusions here. Let me at least play devils advocate for a second. Now I'm no Vista preacher but consider an alternate hypothesis. Suppose that it's not a giant Microsoft conspiracy, and instead, we have a half-assed hardware provider who is programmer-challenged who rushed a motherboard to production and a marketing team throwing as many certifications onto the plate as possible. They get MS approval, not necessarily ACPI, but MS. And they have a tech-support team incapable of proper customer support. Is this at all feasible?
EDIT: This still doesn't bail them out the fact that they claim ACPI adherence when obviously they're not, but it doesn't necessarily mean that there's a giant conspiracy going on. - clickwir, on 07/26/2008, -2/+10I don't know about you, but as far as I know... this guy that cracked open this bombshell, his primary job is not writing motherboard BIOS's. Maybe I'm wrong and he not only writes BIOS's but is really good at it, so good that he's able to tell when others are doing a bad job at it.
But the email from Billy does sound exactly like what this guy has uncovered.
PLUS, the few changes he's made have mostly fixed the problems.... you honestly believe that whoever was paid to write this BIOS, really ***** up that much? No. Not at all. This was on purpose and Foxconn will not be in any computer I am responsible for buying. - Nimda11, on 07/26/2008, -0/+8Ummmm Dos was done in 1994. And "Dos ain't done until Lotus won't run" was the saying.
- werries, on 07/26/2008, -0/+8Canonical could crash, but what the hell are they supposed to do about the linux community? all the developers would just take it up and continue the source code or we'd all move to another version of linux, fedora or mandriva or whatever, pick your poison.
- fatas, on 07/26/2008, -3/+11Do you even understand what monopolisation means?
To play certain games and use certain applications you have to use Windows. Similarly with hardware.
Do you even know of the bullying tactics MS have used with hardware vendors and software developers.
You are just another fat ignorant American that probably voted for Bush twice. - 000dom000, on 07/25/2008, -3/+11Ok so a business simply don't care about a potential 8% drop in sales? (Not that I am saying that every linux user currently uses Foxconn). Doesn't it make more sense to keep all consumers happy? That is unless the costs are recovered from the other side......
- BlueSkyfish, on 07/26/2008, -2/+10Wow, that's... ***** evil.
Up until now, I dual boot Ubuntu and Vista. But after hearing that, I'm deleting my Vista partition altogether. - ronaldmonster, on 07/26/2008, -4/+12Corruption? In my billion dollar industry? No ***** way!
- kaptainKraken, on 07/26/2008, -2/+9you sir are no businessman nor are you an engineer, and i doubt you can do anything of value.
please take a seat and watch the real people work. and kindly keep your mouth shut. - TacticalPenguin, on 07/25/2008, -5/+12Funny. Foxconn is siding with MS to go antilinux, but they make some good hackintosh boards too.
- clickwir, on 07/26/2008, -1/+81. The Foxcon comments in the original story are plain enough to not use a company that tells a customer to "Stop sending us this!!"
2. Foxcon also went out of their way to make sure he know that this was not a LINUX CERTIFIED or SUPPORTED product. Fine, then why do they have entries in the BIOS that specifically feed linux a different set of data?
3. This guy was able to mostly fix it. Shouldn't Foxcon have been able to do this? After all, they are paying people to write the BIOS, they should know their own better than anyone else.
4. Is it really that hard to believe that MS might have done something like encourage a mfgr to bend the rules in their favor? - shiftless, on 07/26/2008, -1/+8Foxconn? Crap brand. Even crappier now.
- bjornski, on 07/25/2008, -0/+7Links?
- diemunkiesdie, on 07/25/2008, -0/+7What do you mean "English people refer to a company as plural"? Do English (I assume you mean British) people call Microsoft, Microsofts?
- sanford42, on 07/26/2008, -2/+8Sadly, they're talking about an open standard. That makes me hate this ***** even more.
- sanford42, on 07/26/2008, -0/+6Right, but if there was evidence that caused the masses to think that it was Chevy using its money to muscle that oil into the mainstream, then yes, there would be cause for alarm.
- arrenlex, on 07/25/2008, -17/+24Wait, are you talking about his email from 1999? As in 9 years ago 1999? Can we get newer news please?
- Vadi0, on 07/26/2008, -1/+6I seriously doubt this put that much of a dent in Linux while it existed (except of course for the few disgruntled used of Foxcomm motherboards, who had every right to think that Linux sucked and was unstable).
- rlbond86, on 07/26/2008, -1/+6So one email from nine years ago, merely suggesting Windows-specific hardware hooks, is incriminating evidence against Foxconn? Come on. I think Foxconn should be ashamed of themselves for a crappy product, but this isn't "Incriminating Evidence." This is one writer taking two almost-unrelated things and insinuating a conspiracy based purely on conjecture.
- ReallyFunGuy, on 07/26/2008, -1/+6Just about the only sense to be found in this thread of morons.
Of course you're being dugg down. - Tribis, on 07/26/2008, -7/+12You didn't have to buy Windows.
- vega27, on 07/25/2008, -0/+5damian7: /wrist your self now b4 ebaums world comes a knockin!?
- geniusj, on 07/26/2008, -2/+7If Foxconn implemented their BIOS in this fashion, then it stands to reason that MS was involved. Otherwise there would be no incentive for them to do it.
- clickwir, on 07/26/2008, -2/+6It's more simple than that.
There should not be anything in the BIOS referring to what OS is running. The BIOS has one job and just needs to do it, what OS I run is my choice. Even more so, not only does it have OS detection, it gives Linux one and Windows another. When it seems pretty clear that if they both had the same one, then there wouldn't be an issue. - rtaibah, on 05/22/2009, -0/+4Well I have attached the actual PDF which is hosted at slated.org.
Ya perhaps I should add your link shotgunefx. Thanks - inactive, on 07/26/2008, -2/+6While you make an excellent case, I really think it's unlikely that's what happened. But I guess I could only say for sure if i were in the field.
- supertrooper, on 07/26/2008, -1/+5Looks like Foxconn is working on a patch now:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+b ... - LeviTheSmith, on 07/26/2008, -1/+5And I'm Levi The Smith! Conqueror of the lands!
- sanford42, on 07/26/2008, -1/+5And this is a prime example of why we prefer open standards to proprietary ones. Let the world look at it, let the world tweak it, and let the world fix it. This way, companies can sell products that appease everyone, even the smaller "niche" markets, and don't have to shell out money on "technology R&D" as if it were "a natural freaking resource that grows on trees or something".
If ever there were an example of why Open Source standards are superior, this is it.
Think about it. This guy cracked open the code of the board, wrote a "semi-fix", and then pointed out repeatedly to the manufacturer that he found exactly where the bug lies. Their "shove it under the rug" mentality regarding it is alarming. Now, apply this to any software you use. If the masses could "crack open" the code and find out where bugs lie, they can write fixes (as this guy did) and submit them to the creators, saving countless amounts of money and time.
Fixes come more frequently and are tested on "real world" machines. Everyone wins. - inactive, on 07/26/2008, -2/+6Microsoft is such a credible source to say that ;)
They'd never bribe or hint at anything that would help them against competitors.
Besides, Unless we see current documentation we can't really tell that they didn't dismiss that and try again.
What other reason would they sabotage the BIOS? Why would Foxconn never notice and update it? Odd, eh? - Mier, on 07/25/2008, -15/+19one company with one mobo screws up linux and out of this molehill comes mount conspiracy.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 133 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is