4 ms·
That isn't anything inherent to the CPU architecture. We could have ARM (or RISC-V) systems that you could install arbitrary operating systems onto. The danger
by zrm 5y ago
That isn't anything inherent to the CPU architecture. We could have ARM (or RISC-V) systems that you could install arbitrary operating systems onto.
The danger is that the transition to another architecture is used as an excuse to not do this, even for devices that have historically been open.
- ajdlinux 5y agoA lot of people who have lived entirely in the x86 world are completely unaware that a single CPU architecture can have many, many, many different incompatible types of system architecture - x86 means a few sub-types of BIOS + UEFI-based PCs, while ARM, Power, etc have far more variance.
- dTal 5y ago"Danger" undersells it a bit - it's already happening, quite explicitly spelled out in Microsoft's legalese regarding Secure Boot. A lot of the Linux world was very afraid on the introduction of Secure Boot, as it was seen as the final anti-Linux coup-de-gras - Microsoft could, at their whim, simply turn off the ability to install Linux! This fear was widely mocked as hysterical. Now they have done exactly that, on all ARM devices that run Windows.
- sofixa 5y agoOfftopic, but > coup-de-gras Is funny. Gras (pronounced gra) means fat(as in animal fat, not a fat panda), and the real saying is coup de grâce (pronounced gras and means grace). For some weird reason English speakers pronounce coup de grâce improperly, skipping the s sound at the end ( funnily it's usually the French language which cuts sounds), including in movies (like Kill Bill).
- stjohnswarts 5y agoThat's fair, english speakers often make fun when the French mutilate our language as well :)
- dTal 5y agoEr, yes... the greasy coup... meant it all along!
- selfhoster11 5y agoI firmly believe that this is their endgame on x86 too. The elevated Windows 11 hardware requirements had the effect of normalising hardware setups capable of end-to-end DRM, which is only a step to the side from Secure Boot restrictions.
- stjohnswarts 5y agoYeah I don't think it has much to do with security as it does securing hardware from competitors.
- ece 5y agoYou can cast doubt on TPM/SecureBoot implementations with evidence, but it very much is real security controlled by the user with mokutil. We need more of this kind of security, that's controller by the user, if we're ever going to get away from locked bootloaders. https://wiki.debian.org/SecureBoot https://wiki.debian.org/SecureBoot
- selfhoster11 5y agoThey give you the keys now. They could change that overnight if they mandate the same "Secure Boot only with a Microsoft key" that they mandated on early ARM devices. Don't be mistaken. They are very much the Don of x86, and when they choose to alter the deal, you'll be SOL. That's why I consider alternative ecosystems (that don't have exorbitant prices) like RISC-V and Raspberry Pi to be critical to the survival of general-purpose computing. Once your ability to run on bare metal disappears (via Secure Boot or otherwise), you're in grave danger of simply not having physical hardware to convert new users.
- ece 5y agoI hope the regulations being discussed right now[1] pass and we can just call SecureBoot what it is instead of fearing what it might become (atleast on x86). [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2992/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/299...