3 ms·
> But the general pattern nowadays is that people value the consistency over customisability. Personally, I value both. I want all the modern so-called 'tamper
by passivate 6y ago
> But the general pattern nowadays is that people value the consistency over customisability.
Personally, I value both. I want all the modern so-called 'tamper proof' features that an OS has, but I also want myself to be in control of all of them. I am fine with switching them on so that only signed code is executed and let the OS maker handle certificate revocation and all that. But if I want to use it as a dev box, I also want the option to turn it off.
Ditto for customization - I want the ability to tweak and change tuning/configuration parameters for performance reasons, for productivity reasons, for aesthetic reasons, but I also want a 'force defaults' and/or disable customizations option for when I'm setting up the computer for a family member, etc.
- freeone3000 6y agoWindows developers develop for Windows on Windows, including kernel developers. The guardrails are lowerable - you can disable SmartScreen, Protected Boot, even Kernel Driver Signing Verification. Nothing prevents you from making your system as insecure as you'd like
- passivate 6y agoAgreed, we can have both.
- SulfurHexaFluri 6y agoYep, the point of this post seems to be to get full access without turning off the safeties because that will trip anti cheat software.