4 ms·
Keep in mind this has happened because people agreed that they can't (normally) run code not singed by someone else (Microsoft) on their own system for “securit
by ogurechny 5y ago
Keep in mind this has happened because people agreed that they can't (normally) run code not singed by someone else (Microsoft) on their own system for “security” reasons. Well, it was not security, it actually was a way to keep keys to themselves, and hold the user system as a hostage. And it has been explained many times by many people.
If you care about software freedoms, even just a tiny bit, you wouldn't touch “Microsoft open source”, and you wouldn't be happy about your friends using any of it, like you wouldn't be happy about seeing them with a heroin syringe. That is going to explode spectacularly one day.
- 29athrowaway 5y agoThe user wants convenience, and then, under the premise of convenience, corporations create systems that give them the convenience they want in exchange for their privacy and freedom. Being spied on, having forced updates, a remote kill switch on your computer, "telemetry", advertisement, and the best of all: your government being bullied and lobbied on with the money you paid... it is all worth it because you can run a stupid DirectX game at 60 fps instead of 58 fps. Until the forced update interrupts your game, that is.
- _8j50 5y agoUsability triumphs everything. Even privacy. Either pass pro-consumer laws or compete with them using free alternatives. Why do you expect a corporation to care about your privacy or well being? They would be using small children, paying them a loaf of bread a week making it illegal to not do business with them if they could. People have rights and equality before the law , corporations not so much.
- hoseja 5y agoYou can run the game at 60fps instead of 600spf though.
- _8j50 5y agoThat is blatant false-dichotomy. You don't need to undermine the immense level of security improvement introduced by driver signing. Kernel mode rootkits are very hard to detect and eradicate. Right now, windows kernel mode rootkits rely on exploiting vulnerable drivers (very easy to detect when vulnerable drivers are loaded). It's not just signing but MS requiring valudation. If only Linux distros required this by default (with a boot option to turn off validation). If you wouldn't touch Microsoft open source but you would touch Google open source (say Chrome or their contributions to the Linux kernel), I would love to hear how that is different. Personally, the software I use is not a matter of ideology but a matter if the best tool for the task at hand. But your observation on how MS is using adversarial compatibility against Linux (flipping the table) is correct. I just don't see how post-systemd gnu/linux is all that different, perhaps because it is many megacorps contributing and controlling Linux? It's not exactly driven by software freedom anymore.