5 ms·

I think Microsoft was right to push for Secure Boot / bootloader signing. The way they pushed for it was/is anti-competitive. I don't think UEFI was the right

I think Microsoft was right to push for Secure Boot / bootloader signing. The way they pushed for it was/is anti-competitive. I don't think UEFI was the right horse to put money behind. It's a complicated hot mess and the most visible innovation has been to use UEFI identifiers for DRM within web browsers. Yay.

sametmax 8y ago
With intel ME next to it, it seems like asking for a metal door, with special key shapes the competition has a hard time to produce, but on a wall you know you can break with a hammer. The current state of computing is less and less about being pro people, and more and more about pro big players.
HeadsUpHigh 8y ago
>I think Microsoft was right to push for Secure Boot / bootloader signing Signing by whom? The OEM of course because giving the key to the user would be unacceptably user-friendly for microsoft. >I don't think UEFI was the right horse to put money behind. It's a complicated hot mess and the most visible innovation has been to use UEFI identifiers for DRM within web browsers. Yay. UEFI was done that way for a reason. Don't underestimate Microsoft's influence on other companies. Same thing with big web companies pushing "open" standards that only they have the manpower to comply with.