As much as I'm not a Microsoft fan, this strikes my as conspiracy theorizing.
Firstly, nobody--not Linux or anyone else--seriously threatens Microsoft in the commodity PC space. They probably see Apple as a threat, but this move has nothing to do with Apple, since they build their own hardware and won't be affected by these signing key requirements. Linux users make up a tiny percentage of desktop and laptop users, and many of those bought OEM machines with Windows pre-installed, meaning Microsoft got paid anyway. The idea that Microsoft would undertake this kind of technical hurdle to stave off the coming hoards of Ubuntu users simply isn't realistic.
Secondly, pre-boot security vulnerabilities are very much real, and exceptionally difficult to detect in an already-booted operating system. Here's an area where Microsoft does feel competitively threatened, since Apple has been able to win market share on the back of Microsoft's poor security record, so Microsoft has had to come up with some way to shore up this gaping hole in their anti-malware strategy. Matthew Gerring of Red Hat, who's basically been leading the Linux efforts to figure out this UEFI stuff, readily admits that there are attacks already in the wild that UEFI addresses, and that no viable solutions other than signed OSes have been proposed to deal with them (see http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/10971.html for a more thorough treatment). It's a hard problem, and while I would concede that Microsoft doesn't care how this affects the Linux world, I don't think hurting Linux was their primary motivation.
Yes, pre-boot vulnerabilities were a motivating factor.
But why forcibly disable Custom mode on ARM then? This is especially disturbing considering that ARM may very well be the major computing platform of the future.
Yeah, I think this is a big part of it. The mobile ecosystem has evolved in such a way that locked-down devices are the standard, and content providers have had a lot to do with that (apparently B&N's decision to lock down the Nook Tablet after having released the super-hackable Nook Color was made almost entirely at Netflix's insistence). I'm certainly a lot more annoyed at MS over their ARM positions than their x86 ones, but this attitude predates their entry into the sector.
Part of it might be the same reason why Amazon, BN, Apple and many Android tablets have the bootloader locked. The Windows RT tablet has ties to content consumption, like 30% or 25% cut of apps and also media sales like movies, tv shows, books, music etc. which are used as revenue(and even shared with OEMs according to rumors). Think about the how consoles are sold at near cost or a loss to make up on the games.
Loading Android or Ubuntu onto Surface or any other Windows RT tablet undermines this, that's why even the Nook, Fire and iPad come with locked bootloaders.
>This is especially disturbing considering that ARM may very well be the major computing platform of the future
Which ARM device has the biggest share of ARM computing devices like tablets? Apple with 80% and rest Android(many with locked bootloaders)?
Why does this come up only about Windows RT tablets that are going to start from zero against the iPad juggernaut? Where are comments like yours in the iPad discussions? What am I missing here? Why is it disturbing when Microsoft is starting to try to do something which Apple has already implemented with wild success?
> Why is it disturbing when Microsoft is starting to try to do something which Apple has already implemented with wild success?
I think Apple (and certain Android manufacturers) have made the wrong choice for long-term consumer welfare as well. Apple's increasing dominance is a tremendous threat to consumers' ability to control their own hardware.
In fact, Microsoft has historically been the good guy on this point. They are a big reason why we have such a large selection of cheap PC hardware. It's disturbing because, if Microsoft decides to move in the direction of locked-down hardware, there will be no major player left to support generic, OS-agnostic hardware. Which in turn leaves Linux users very much high and dry.
So really I sympathize with your perspective. It's ultimately the people who buy Apple products who have subsidized this disastrous trend.
Firstly, nobody--not Linux or anyone else--seriously threatens Microsoft in the commodity PC space. They probably see Apple as a threat, but this move has nothing to do with Apple, since they build their own hardware and won't be affected by these signing key requirements. Linux users make up a tiny percentage of desktop and laptop users, and many of those bought OEM machines with Windows pre-installed, meaning Microsoft got paid anyway. The idea that Microsoft would undertake this kind of technical hurdle to stave off the coming hoards of Ubuntu users simply isn't realistic.
Secondly, pre-boot security vulnerabilities are very much real, and exceptionally difficult to detect in an already-booted operating system. Here's an area where Microsoft does feel competitively threatened, since Apple has been able to win market share on the back of Microsoft's poor security record, so Microsoft has had to come up with some way to shore up this gaping hole in their anti-malware strategy. Matthew Gerring of Red Hat, who's basically been leading the Linux efforts to figure out this UEFI stuff, readily admits that there are attacks already in the wild that UEFI addresses, and that no viable solutions other than signed OSes have been proposed to deal with them (see http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/10971.html for a more thorough treatment). It's a hard problem, and while I would concede that Microsoft doesn't care how this affects the Linux world, I don't think hurting Linux was their primary motivation.