3 ms·

Well, in this case the user really wants to modify the system so they can either 1) run it with Secure boot disabled, 2) use poorly-coded or outdated kernel dri

Well, in this case the user really wants to modify the system so they can either 1) run it with Secure boot disabled, 2) use poorly-coded or outdated kernel drivers such as the list mentioned by mckirk (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25766871 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25766871) to bypass NT policies, or 3) Install Windows in BIOS/CSM mode (so that the only hindrance is the generation of root certificates, unlike with UEFI installations which triggers the kernel to check if the drivers loaded is blessed by Microsoft).

userbinator 6y ago
"tamper". That connotation is intentional. MS wants to take control away from users and owners, so uses such language. How about "modify" or "customise"? No, because that wouldn't fit their authoritarian narrative.
- zinekeller 6y ago
  Noted and changed. > MS wants to take control away from users and owners, so uses such language. I wanted to clarify this issue in logner detail but obviously outside of enterprise settings (which the owner does not trust the user). Now, I'm writing to HN here, which really likes its freedoms (and I also want it). But the general pattern nowadays is that people value the consistency over customisability. The success of locked-down iPhone and Android is a great example: sure some users wants to run other software on the device but the simple truth is vast majority of users prefers to trust Apple or Google to do their job properly as their main goal is not to run a computer but rather to do their own business (similar to how a company often contracts its electricity, water, network connectivity, waste management and others). On a similar vein, the newer versions of Windows will run with the secure boot option enabled (which will ensure that the system is as intended by Microsoft). Again, some people wants the system to be easily modifiable, and in that case there are ways to lower the guardrails to allow you to a certain extent. But the vast majority of users trusts Microsoft to manage the system and let them just do work. TLDR: Some users view a computer as something to tinker upon but most users see it as a tool to be used.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > The success of locked-down iPhone and Android is a great example It's the example that everybody uses, but because of the nature of vertical integration and the network effect, you can't use popularity as an indication that people actually want any given individual aspect of those products. Suppose it's 2010 and you need an app that only exists on iPhone. Well, you might not like that it's locked down, but you need that app. Then once you've had one for three years you're locked into their ecosystem indefinitely. It's also a trap. When the lockdown first comes, they say they're just using it to exclude malware and other things you actually don't want. You have to get your apps signed, but they sign all the ones you care about, so what does it matter? Only after mobile platforms that don't do this have reached negligible market share and have no network effect do they start excluding apps you might actually want. But by then it's too late.
    - zinekeller 6y ago
      Now, I do really want to agree to your analysis, but knowing how many Desktop Linux users are either just using a browser or Electron app (consistency) or Wine (consistency) and the fact that essential libraries (from the Gnome 2->3 debacle to systemd to unreliable semantic versioning) are much more unstable (which makes a non-consistent environment, and even Debian is discussing this very issue again), I am not sure if an average user really wants to have customisability versus consistency.
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        There is a difference between wanting the ability do something and actually doing it. The former is important because it makes itself unnecessary. If 90% of people are installing some third party modification, the developers notice and incorporate it into the ordinary installation, and then they don't need to anymore. But without the ability to do that, that doesn't happen, and then everything is worse because you not only can't install it as a mod, it also then can't become popular enough as a mod to be incorporated into the standard distribution.
  - passivate 6y ago

userbinator 6y ago

"tamper". That connotation is intentional. MS wants to take control away from users and owners, so uses such language. How about "modify" or "customise"? No, because that wouldn't fit their authoritarian narrative.

zinekeller 6y ago
Noted and changed. > MS wants to take control away from users and owners, so uses such language. I wanted to clarify this issue in logner detail but obviously outside of enterprise settings (which the owner does not trust the user). Now, I'm writing to HN here, which really likes its freedoms (and I also want it). But the general pattern nowadays is that people value the consistency over customisability. The success of locked-down iPhone and Android is a great example: sure some users wants to run other software on the device but the simple truth is vast majority of users prefers to trust Apple or Google to do their job properly as their main goal is not to run a computer but rather to do their own business (similar to how a company often contracts its electricity, water, network connectivity, waste management and others). On a similar vein, the newer versions of Windows will run with the secure boot option enabled (which will ensure that the system is as intended by Microsoft). Again, some people wants the system to be easily modifiable, and in that case there are ways to lower the guardrails to allow you to a certain extent. But the vast majority of users trusts Microsoft to manage the system and let them just do work. TLDR: Some users view a computer as something to tinker upon but most users see it as a tool to be used.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > The success of locked-down iPhone and Android is a great example It's the example that everybody uses, but because of the nature of vertical integration and the network effect, you can't use popularity as an indication that people actually want any given individual aspect of those products. Suppose it's 2010 and you need an app that only exists on iPhone. Well, you might not like that it's locked down, but you need that app. Then once you've had one for three years you're locked into their ecosystem indefinitely. It's also a trap. When the lockdown first comes, they say they're just using it to exclude malware and other things you actually don't want. You have to get your apps signed, but they sign all the ones you care about, so what does it matter? Only after mobile platforms that don't do this have reached negligible market share and have no network effect do they start excluding apps you might actually want. But by then it's too late.
  - zinekeller 6y ago
    Now, I do really want to agree to your analysis, but knowing how many Desktop Linux users are either just using a browser or Electron app (consistency) or Wine (consistency) and the fact that essential libraries (from the Gnome 2->3 debacle to systemd to unreliable semantic versioning) are much more unstable (which makes a non-consistent environment, and even Debian is discussing this very issue again), I am not sure if an average user really wants to have customisability versus consistency.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      There is a difference between wanting the ability do something and actually doing it. The former is important because it makes itself unnecessary. If 90% of people are installing some third party modification, the developers notice and incorporate it into the ordinary installation, and then they don't need to anymore. But without the ability to do that, that doesn't happen, and then everything is worse because you not only can't install it as a mod, it also then can't become popular enough as a mod to be incorporated into the standard distribution.
- passivate 6y ago