Thanks for more insight into this issue. > If a desktop computer example is not enough, look at how Android phones have increasingly tightened down everything.

Thanks for more insight into this issue. > If a desktop computer example is not enough, look at how Android phones have increasingly tightened down everything. You can't just take any model and install a custom OS (aka ROM in Android community). It was universally easy 10 years ago, that's why Cyanogenmod became so popular. Now your choices are very limited. This is exactly the area where I would double down on the "vote with your wallet" argument. There is enough variety and choice in the Android ecosystem, and if you do really care about running LineageOS / GrapheneOS / PostmarketOS / etc, you probably already know what your options are. > With this I just want to say the wallet argument doesn't work when something slowly becomes the status quo and it takes experts/activists to fight back (a minority by numbers). You will always be able to buy hardware and support vendors that are explicitly non-hostile. System76, Frame.work, MNT... More maintstream options also exist, Dell was shipping laptops with Ubuntu as far as in 2006 (I remember it was big news at the time, I don't know how is it like nowadays). Even Apple seems committed to allowing (quietly encouraging?) third-party OS's, so I'm watching the progress on Asahi as well. > A great thread and arguments provided here, how Microsoft [...] will not sign anything GPLv3 for SecureBoot Complex licenses result in complex issues. I understand why FSF chose to design that license the way they did, but it's my personal opinion that they've caused more harm to the users of their software with it than they've done good. Software has value when it can be used. If I can't use it (e.g. because my vendor won't ship it), it has no value to me. I don't understand why Free Software advocates want their users on non-free platforms to suffer. Just a couple days ago someone on HN suggested that GIMP shouldn't have been ported to M1 Macs[0]. Emacs disables already-working features, because support exists only on macOS[1]. The BSDs had to ship with years, almost decades old forks of GCC[2]. I think these moves are an underhanded attack on the users' four software freedoms. I might have no choice of operating system (e.g. because this is what my employer mandates, this is the hardware that I was able to afford, there is other non-free software I must run to earn my living, etc), and FSF/RMS think I should be punished for that. From my (user's) point of view, neither FSF nor MS care at all about what benefits me - the user, and instead just want to play out some petty political conflict. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34392834 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34392834 [1]: http://xahlee.info/emacs/misc/emacs_macos_emoji.html http://xahlee.info/emacs/misc/emacs_macos_emoji.html [2]: https://man.openbsd.org/gcc-local.1 https://man.openbsd.org/gcc-local.1 > But if I followed through, then still the weakest point is/becomes the keyboard. Nope, keyboard has no more importance than any other part of the device. Once an adversary has physical access, all bets are off. Nuke it from the orbit, restore from backups, and rotate all credentials.