4 ms·

Yes, I do think it's a stretch considering their agreement with OEMs requires OEMs allow for diabling SecureBoot and require allowing users to enroll their own

Yes, I do think it's a stretch considering their agreement with OEMs requires OEMs allow for diabling SecureBoot and require allowing users to enroll their own keys. The PC market and mobile phone markets are very different, with a huge precedent already being set that mobile ARM devices are locked down. Are you equally upset that iPhones and virtually all Android devices also have locked down bootloaders? On top of this, Microsoft cross signs the keys used to sign the Linux bootloaders so that they work out of the box even on computers that have only the default MS keys enrolled. Considering that most people fail to grasp those two salient points when presenting their conspiracy theories... yes... I feel comfortable dismissing most of them out of hand.

byuu 10y ago
> their agreement with OEMs requires OEMs allow for diabling SecureBoot Nobody ever goes from one extreme to the other. Restrictions are added a little at a time to minimize the outrage. Look at Gatekeeper on OSX. "Oh it's just an option", then it's enabled by default. "Oh you can just turn it off." Now it automatically turns itself back on every 30 days. Their next move will likely be to require all apps to be signed. Again, if I'm wrong, great! As someone who releases OSX software but won't pay Apple for the privilege, I hope I am. Further, you don't always have to go 100% restrictive to achieve the same effect. Look at web browsers and self-signing certificates. Sure, you can still accept and install them, but it's been made such a pain that nobody can really pull off a self-signed website. What serious OSX developer is going to release unsigned software that requires people to go in and turn Gatekeeper off every 30 days? It might as well be mandatory for all the choice developers looking to earn a living on that platform have these days. > Are you equally upset that iPhones and virtually all Android devices also have locked down bootloaders? Yes! There's not really much of a market for alternative phone operating systems; but even still, I buy Android because I can sideload regular applications without hacking ("jailbreaking") my own property.

byuu 10y ago

> their agreement with OEMs requires OEMs allow for diabling SecureBoot Nobody ever goes from one extreme to the other. Restrictions are added a little at a time to minimize the outrage. Look at Gatekeeper on OSX. "Oh it's just an option", then it's enabled by default. "Oh you can just turn it off." Now it automatically turns itself back on every 30 days. Their next move will likely be to require all apps to be signed. Again, if I'm wrong, great! As someone who releases OSX software but won't pay Apple for the privilege, I hope I am. Further, you don't always have to go 100% restrictive to achieve the same effect. Look at web browsers and self-signing certificates. Sure, you can still accept and install them, but it's been made such a pain that nobody can really pull off a self-signed website. What serious OSX developer is going to release unsigned software that requires people to go in and turn Gatekeeper off every 30 days? It might as well be mandatory for all the choice developers looking to earn a living on that platform have these days. > Are you equally upset that iPhones and virtually all Android devices also have locked down bootloaders? Yes! There's not really much of a market for alternative phone operating systems; but even still, I buy Android because I can sideload regular applications without hacking ("jailbreaking") my own property.