4 ms·

No. That's just propaganda. The purpose is to further vendor lock you. MS has a minute share in the world of OS, completely outclassed by Linux. They're trying

by 0xedd 4y ago

No. That's just propaganda. The purpose is to further vendor lock you. MS has a minute share in the world of OS, completely outclassed by Linux. They're trying to force their way in by fooling people like you that something like Pluton is required. The only reason they dominate the PC market share is because their spyware OS is installed by default and people don't go around switching OSes. An anecdote about security; at my workplace, one of the top 5 security firms in the world, secure boot isn't required nor is MS. Makes you wonder.

Avamander 4y ago
I'm not sure if you don't know or don't want to know what SB does, but it's not propaganda, neither is it vendor-locking. Most widespread vendor locks don't use SB, neither is the functionality only usable for that (well duh, it could be, because you can choose your root of trust, but you can choose the root). You might as well call other tech Linux doesn't play well with "vendor-locking" as this point with no concern, even if there are no real "locks" like that, just lack of support. "TME doesn't work? Literally vendor-locking and Microsoft propaganda!1!" Security corporations, known for their cargo culting in addition to the usual corporate bullshit, aren't a great example. But bringing then up like they somehow were... makes you wonder indeed.
denkmoon 4y ago
What? Secure Boot doing anything to force you into Microsoft solutions is a hardware vendor/supplier issue. They're the one that configure the secure boot parameters, and with minor exception (don't buy bad products...) they do not lock you out of booting non-Microsoft solutions. I fail to see in any way how preventing the loading of unsigned drivers in the secure boot chain is "vendor lock-in". Furthermore, that signature does _not_ have to be Microsoft's. You can sign a driver with a private CA and provided that signer is in the trust store, it will be loaded. >at my workplace, one of the top 5 security firms in the world Cool, my dad works for Nintendo tho. Agree with other poster, not sure if you even know what Secure Boot is. Seems like you read an article on Slashdot about it 10 years ago.

by 0xedd 4y ago

Avamander 4y ago

I'm not sure if you don't know or don't want to know what SB does, but it's not propaganda, neither is it vendor-locking. Most widespread vendor locks don't use SB, neither is the functionality only usable for that (well duh, it could be, because you can choose your root of trust, but you can choose the root). You might as well call other tech Linux doesn't play well with "vendor-locking" as this point with no concern, even if there are no real "locks" like that, just lack of support. "TME doesn't work? Literally vendor-locking and Microsoft propaganda!1!" Security corporations, known for their cargo culting in addition to the usual corporate bullshit, aren't a great example. But bringing then up like they somehow were... makes you wonder indeed.

denkmoon 4y ago

What? Secure Boot doing anything to force you into Microsoft solutions is a hardware vendor/supplier issue. They're the one that configure the secure boot parameters, and with minor exception (don't buy bad products...) they do not lock you out of booting non-Microsoft solutions. I fail to see in any way how preventing the loading of unsigned drivers in the secure boot chain is "vendor lock-in". Furthermore, that signature does _not_ have to be Microsoft's. You can sign a driver with a private CA and provided that signer is in the trust store, it will be loaded. >at my workplace, one of the top 5 security firms in the world Cool, my dad works for Nintendo tho. Agree with other poster, not sure if you even know what Secure Boot is. Seems like you read an article on Slashdot about it 10 years ago.