3 ms·
There's a collective of quixotic Mexican software developers and users that is quite active. I wonder why is it that FSF's philosophy with its exhortation to vi
by jordigh 10y ago
There's a collective of quixotic Mexican software developers and users that is quite active. I wonder why is it that FSF's philosophy with its exhortation to viciously defend freedom resonates so well in some parts of Mexico. It was those groups, which congregate on the Hackmitin[1], Hacklab Autónomo[2] and Rancho Electrónico[3] that helped Jacobo Nájera with his legal proceedings against Secure Boot.
I went a couple of times to the Hacklab. It's an interesting place. At the time, it looked like they were squatting in an abandoned building and they looked like Hollywood hacker stereotypes. If it weren't for the proliferation of hardware with Debian and Trisquel logos, their appearance make you would think these were just ordinary anarchist punks. In a way, that's what they are, except they are technoanarchist punks, and obviously not completely anarchist as they know how to work with the legal system. They were very left-leaning, distrustful of all corporations, completely aligned with FSF philosophy; radical, feminist, and fiercely protective of their rights.
I rather miss that scene. I haven't found quite something like it here in Canada.
I hope Nájera manages to get somewhere, but it seems like a hopeless fight against MSFT, the one that is really ensuring that installing the OS of your choice is impossible. The whole "security" thing is a sideshow; the real goal here with "Secure" Boot is to make it harder to install unlicensed copies of Windows.
---
[1] http://hackmitin.espora.org/ http://hackmitin.espora.org/
("mitin" in Spanish is from English "meeting" but has left-leaning political connotations such as protests and marches.)
[2] http://hacklab.espora.org/ http://hacklab.espora.org/
[3] http://ranchoelectronico.org/ http://ranchoelectronico.org/
- comex 10y ago> The whole "security" thing is a sideshow; the real goal here with "Secure" Boot is to make it harder to install unlicensed copies of Windows. How does that make sense? The Lenovo laptop in question, like most non-Apple PCs sold in the West, came with a licensed copy of some version of Windows; and Microsoft's strategy lately has been to offer (almost coerce) free OS upgrades, apparently valuing users being up-to-date over the revenue it could gain from the meager fraction of users who'd pay for upgrades. So there's little reason for users to ever install pirated copies of Windows on such devices, or for Microsoft to care if they do (in order to downgrade or whatever). In China and elsewhere the situation is different, but since the manufacturers are "in on" the piracy, there is no reason they'd enable any firmware features that could hinder users from installing pirated Windows; and even if a future version of Windows requires Secure Boot, that would just be patched out along with the activation checks. (That is, if China ever gets off Windows XP!)
- ryanlol 10y ago> The whole "security" thing is a sideshow; the real goal here with "Secure" Boot is to make it harder to install unlicensed copies of Windows. This is an utterly ridiculous conspiracy theory with zero connection to the reality. Not only does Secure boot not affect someone trying to install a pirated copy of Windows, but it singlehandedly does more against malware than the entire AV industry ever.