4 ms·
> Actually no, secure boot is evil, and comparing it to GPG is fallacious. The objection isn't to code signatures in general, but the inevitability of baked-in
by NeutronBoy 10y ago
> Actually no, secure boot is evil, and comparing it to GPG is fallacious. The objection isn't to code signatures in general, but the inevitability of baked-in privileged keys inherent in its design.
I mean, both my desktop and laptop have extensive BIOS options for key management - including removing the initial keys and loading your own.
- mindslight 10y agoYes, and this is actually encouraged by Microsoft to avoid anti-trust action. As I said, take a look at ARM for what an actual locked-down ecosystem looks like. Manufacturers inherently want to lock stuff down (for one, they sell more devices when someone wants to try out a new OS), but functionality being called a "standard" should actually be accessible to device purchasers.
- johncolanduoni 10y agoDo you think their reaction to not having a standardized version would be "aw shucks, I guess we totally won't go with our own proprietary version then!"
- mindslight 10y agoIf markets were perfectly efficient, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. In reality defaults matter, whether for a manufacturer following a standard or a consumer buying an off the shelf PC.