3 ms·

> Microsoft is now pushing toward TPM being required in Linux Oh? I think you may be reading too much into what Microsoft has actually done here. How exactly

> Microsoft is now pushing toward TPM being required in Linux Oh? I think you may be reading too much into what Microsoft has actually done here. How exactly could a TPM be required for Linux? > It also screams of the Halloween documents where Microsoft talked about needing to kill off open protocols. Wow this is a blast from the past! Almost twenty five years ago! I think it's fine to not like Windows (yep), even hate (somewhat irrationally, sure) Microsoft for the company they were, but a generation has passed since 1998. Maybe its time to find some new material.

ilammy 4y ago
> How exactly could a TPM be required for Linux? Of course it would not be "required" required—so long as you're okay with maintaining your own distro, with forks of everything having essential TPM-based security features excised, working with your own builds of the kernel. Good luck selling this your employer.
- mustache_kimono 4y ago
  > Of course it would not be "required" required So, it's not literally true. It's just vibes, man. And I guess that's what disappoints me. If lots of Linux people see TPM as a good thing that should be adopted in the major distros (not unlike systemd), because of the benefits, what's the problem? > Good luck selling this your employer. What are you selling exactly?
dane-pgp 4y ago
> How exactly could a TPM be required for Linux? "The laws of Australia will trump the laws of mathematics: Turnbull" https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-laws-of-australia-will-trump-the-laws-of-mathematics-turnbull/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-laws-of-australia-will-tru...
- mustache_kimono 4y ago
  Ahh, the government would mandate it? That sounds likely. /s ... Still doesn't have much to do with Microsoft?
  - dane-pgp 4y ago
    If Microsoft didn't mandate TPMs for hardware running Windows 11 (or kept Windows 10 supported in parallel indefinitely), then governments wouldn't be able to pass such a law without potentially bricking the computers of millions of citizens. I'm not expecting Microsoft to make a moral stand against TPMs, but they could at least have accidentally been on the right side just by not mandating TPM support. You have to look at the incentives, though. If a government passed this law, it would put huge barriers in the way of people developing innovative new Linux distros, especially if, in practice, every distro had to pay a "tax" to Microsoft to have their signing keys whitelisted by device manufacturers. Even if Microsoft didn't see this as a way to stifle niche OSes, industry groups (of which Microsoft is a member) would push for such laws just to prevent "software piracy", and of course Hollywood would push for the laws to prevent "media piracy". That would in turn raise demand for mainstream OSes, because those would be the only ones that could stream movies and music. So when I suggest that the government would mandate it, that's in the context of a political climate where big businesses often write and lobby for laws which make it difficult for smaller competitors to challenge them. Whether Microsoft does that lobbying publicly, or privately, or via proxies, is somewhat immaterial to my argument.
ilyt 4y ago
> Oh? I think you may be reading too much into what Microsoft has actually done here. How exactly could a TPM be required for Linux? Push hardware vendors to require it to boot OS or else they don't get certification for new windows release - same as they did with secure boot
- mustache_kimono 4y ago
  > Push hardware vendors to require it to boot OS AFAIK the requirement only applies to Windows? And hardware vendors care about working on Windows, news at 11. Show me where "Microsoft is now pushing toward TPM being required in Linux." I fail to understand your's or the GP's point. I think you think "We got 'em!" On what? A vibes violation? A TPM, or something like a TPM, seems pretty sensible these days.
  - ilyt 4y ago
    It moves process from "put any distro and just install it" to "open the bios, find the right options to change or disable and then you can actually install it".
    - mustache_kimono 4y ago
      Why would this even have to be the case? Linux will work on hardware with a TPM chip. It will also work on hardware without a TPM chip. If you're saying one day, some distro may choose not work on hardware without a TPM chip, take it up with that disto (in your imaginary future)? It's not Microsoft's problem?
scbrg 4y ago
> a generation has passed since 1998 And yet, many of the current senior management were there in 1998 and were obviously fine with it. Most of the rest joined shortly after and were obviously also fine with it.
- mustache_kimono 4y ago
  And yet you should still get some new material. I don't like Windows and I still have bad taste in my mouth re: Microsoft from the 90s, but I/the world got over it. You should too.

ilammy 4y ago

> How exactly could a TPM be required for Linux? Of course it would not be "required" required—so long as you're okay with maintaining your own distro, with forks of everything having essential TPM-based security features excised, working with your own builds of the kernel. Good luck selling this your employer.

mustache_kimono 4y ago
> Of course it would not be "required" required So, it's not literally true. It's just vibes, man. And I guess that's what disappoints me. If lots of Linux people see TPM as a good thing that should be adopted in the major distros (not unlike systemd), because of the benefits, what's the problem? > Good luck selling this your employer. What are you selling exactly?

dane-pgp 4y ago

> How exactly could a TPM be required for Linux? "The laws of Australia will trump the laws of mathematics: Turnbull" https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-laws-of-australia-will-trump-the-laws-of-mathematics-turnbull/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-laws-of-australia-will-tru...

mustache_kimono 4y ago
Ahh, the government would mandate it? That sounds likely. /s ... Still doesn't have much to do with Microsoft?
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  If Microsoft didn't mandate TPMs for hardware running Windows 11 (or kept Windows 10 supported in parallel indefinitely), then governments wouldn't be able to pass such a law without potentially bricking the computers of millions of citizens. I'm not expecting Microsoft to make a moral stand against TPMs, but they could at least have accidentally been on the right side just by not mandating TPM support. You have to look at the incentives, though. If a government passed this law, it would put huge barriers in the way of people developing innovative new Linux distros, especially if, in practice, every distro had to pay a "tax" to Microsoft to have their signing keys whitelisted by device manufacturers. Even if Microsoft didn't see this as a way to stifle niche OSes, industry groups (of which Microsoft is a member) would push for such laws just to prevent "software piracy", and of course Hollywood would push for the laws to prevent "media piracy". That would in turn raise demand for mainstream OSes, because those would be the only ones that could stream movies and music. So when I suggest that the government would mandate it, that's in the context of a political climate where big businesses often write and lobby for laws which make it difficult for smaller competitors to challenge them. Whether Microsoft does that lobbying publicly, or privately, or via proxies, is somewhat immaterial to my argument.

ilyt 4y ago

> Oh? I think you may be reading too much into what Microsoft has actually done here. How exactly could a TPM be required for Linux? Push hardware vendors to require it to boot OS or else they don't get certification for new windows release - same as they did with secure boot

mustache_kimono 4y ago
> Push hardware vendors to require it to boot OS AFAIK the requirement only applies to Windows? And hardware vendors care about working on Windows, news at 11. Show me where "Microsoft is now pushing toward TPM being required in Linux." I fail to understand your's or the GP's point. I think you think "We got 'em!" On what? A vibes violation? A TPM, or something like a TPM, seems pretty sensible these days.
- ilyt 4y ago
  It moves process from "put any distro and just install it" to "open the bios, find the right options to change or disable and then you can actually install it".
  - mustache_kimono 4y ago
    Why would this even have to be the case? Linux will work on hardware with a TPM chip. It will also work on hardware without a TPM chip. If you're saying one day, some distro may choose not work on hardware without a TPM chip, take it up with that disto (in your imaginary future)? It's not Microsoft's problem?

scbrg 4y ago

> a generation has passed since 1998 And yet, many of the current senior management were there in 1998 and were obviously fine with it. Most of the rest joined shortly after and were obviously also fine with it.

mustache_kimono 4y ago
And yet you should still get some new material. I don't like Windows and I still have bad taste in my mouth re: Microsoft from the 90s, but I/the world got over it. You should too.