3 ms·

And that's exactly the wrong solution. I do want to use secure boot and TPM2 (I do, currently). Just not with windows. Why should be secure boot windows exclus

• peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > And that's exactly the wrong solution. it's a solution it's only a matter of choice, there's no wrong choice, choices are personal. You're complaining about something that's very easy to overcome. > I do want to use secure boot and TPM2 (I do, currently). Just not with windows You can. just disable device guard. > Why should be secure boot windows exclusive feature? you are angry about the wrong thing device guard and secure boot are different things, related, but different.
  • vetinari 4y ago
    It is not a solution, it is a bad workaround. > device guard and secure boot are different things, related, but different. The problem is that it can have potentially catastrophic impact. If the user enabled Bitlocker, and didn't save recovery key (it will happen for mainstream users), he can lose his windows drive when he tries linux. As I wrote above, another extra-hop for those who would like to go off the beaten windows path.
    • peoplefromibiza 4y ago
      > It is not a solution, it is a bad workaround. it's a configuration option. it's a bad workaround for you. I disagree. > If the user enabled Bitlocker, and didn't save recovery key then the user is responsible of being incautious. case closed.
      • vetinari 4y ago
        > then the user is responsible of being incautious. Congratulation, you just invalidated the entire raison d'etre of both Secure Boot and this new Device Guard.