3 ms·
Sure, because it is not like anyone would accuse them of abusive business practices and of trying to kill open source if they made it impossible to run software
by lazaroclapp 10y ago
Sure, because it is not like anyone would accuse them of abusive business practices and of trying to kill open source if they made it impossible to run software not signed by them... /s
Even if you assume they would add a UEFI "enable developer mode" setting, this would get them so much bad press (and, also, it would actually make developing and distributing software on Windows a lot harder for smaller and open-source developers, and deploying custom software harder for enterprise costumers).
- digler999 10y agoOne of the things I love to criticize MS for is their "user account control" : gee, looks like you're actually trying to....USE.... your computer for something. You know, actually ...USING...your computer might damage it. Since making a secure platform isn't profitable, we'll just make the screen darker, cause you know, darkness kills the spyware. See, the signing system doesn't have to be mandated. It could pop up a UAC-like screen but with an actually useful message: this code is known to have malware, we recommend you dont run it. If you absolutely want to, press OK at your own risk. Another message could say it's completely unsigned, so devs could still write and distribute their own code. But make it free to submit to the "app store" and get reviewed by MS. That would work wonders to improve security across their whole ecosystem, and not force anything down the users' throats.