3 ms·

I get that. But as you can surely see, this is not a common use case at all. Less than 1% (number pulled out of the ass) of regular consumers get their laptop s

I get that. But as you can surely see, this is not a common use case at all. Less than 1% (number pulled out of the ass) of regular consumers get their laptop stolen. Then among those, very little percentage of people actually care (enough to pay somebody to to secure the laptop properly) about the data stored in the machine. Mandating secure boot and making legit consumers to go through all that just to run their own os is simply bullshit. It's just a method to lock down the machine.

cwyers 9y ago
Your ass-pull laptop theft rate of 1% is still roughly four times the use rate of Linux in the Steam Hardware Survey. Installing your own OS is not a common use case at all, either.
- chungy 9y ago
  Steam is a bit of an ass-pull itself, not at all being an accurate representation of an average computer user. Real figures tend to be around 2-3%, for example: https://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx https://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share...
  - cwyers 9y ago
    That doesn't really change the point much, does it? Installing your own non-Windows OS on a machine is a very small part of the market. Providing security for the people who will never install a new OS on their machine (not even a new version of Windows) is serving a much larger part of the market.
    - vetinari 9y ago
      Providing security for the much larger part of the market does not mean, that it is necessary to lock out the minority. Otherwise, why have the antitrust laws at all? The dominant market players provide useful services, why should we care about the minor players? (Not only in operating systems, but in general).