4 ms·

It's simple. When SecureBoot is done by Microsoft, it's a terrible thing that destroys all freedoms. All hardware with it should be boycotted. When it's done

• izacus 8y ago
  What you've never seen a hypocrite before? ;) Just look at amount of comments on Apple threads concerning their eager assistance to Chinese regime and amount of comments declaring Apple hardware as the second coming of the messiah in all other hardware threads.
• beagle3 8y ago
  Can you link to the instructions for disabling SecureBoot on microsoft ARM devices?
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  • mjg59 8y ago
    For laptop-style devices it's in the firmware configuration. For phones, well, can you link to the instructions for disabling it in iPhones? Microsoft's restrictions here are abhorrent, but they're also not outside the industry norms. The "Windows ARM devices must enforce secure boot" thing dates to the only Windows ARM devices being phones and tablets, and it's been updated now that that's changing.
    • beagle3 8y ago
      > For laptop-style devices it's in the firmware configuration. The discussion in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15855195 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15855195 indicates that, as of 7 months ago, this was not the case if those laptop-style ARM devices (the linked policy on microsoft's website is now 404). > The "Windows ARM devices must enforce secure boot" thing dates to the only Windows ARM devices being phones and tablets, and it's been updated now that that's changing. It included Surface RT with keyboards, which were esentially laptop-style, at the point in time where Microsoft was still expecting other manufacturers to adopt RT (IIRC there were even a couple of samsung laptop models, quickly dropped).
  • geofft 8y ago
    Same place as the instructions for disabling Secure Boot on Apple ARM devices. These corporations are big enough that it makes little sense to say "corporation good" or "corporation bad" (and it also doesn't provide any incentive for the corporation to change). If we say "Enforced bootloader signature verification with the ability for the physical device owner to enroll keys is good" and "Enforced bootloader signature verification without that is bad," that applies equally well to both MS and Apple.
    • beagle3 8y ago
      I tend to agree about "feature good, feature bad". But corporations ("are people" and) it definitely makes sense to say they are "good" or "bad", just as you can say that about people. Microsoft, for decades, bullied everyone around and kept pissing into the collective village well, e.g. with their stacking of ISO committees towards standardizing OOXML, which later slowed down ISO processes to a stop because of the many never-present-never-voting-except-that-one-vote members (and those processes are not quick to begin with). I have over 20 years of bullying stories between 1990-2010 or so, some of which I was personally involved and affected by. They have been beat into submission in the last few years, and are now behaving in line with a "good corporate citizen" behaviour. If they continue that for twenty years, I might consider them reformed. Holywood/MPAA are a "bad corporation" for their work on the public domain. Oracle are a "bad corporation" for anyone who likes open systems. Google is a "bad corporation" for anyone who likes privacy. Facebook is a "bad corporation" for almost any group. I'm sure Apple is too, but I haven't met anyone who has been affected by Apple's policies except of being a direct competitor, so I'm not sure how that group looks. All of these companies do deliver useful services, of course. But they do that for profit (which is what a corporate does). And while doing that, to grow, they inflict great harm on the ecosystem at large, much larger than the benefit and profit they derive from causing that harm. I guess that's one definition of a "bad actor" in my book.
• bad_user 8y ago
  The double standards are strong in the software industry.