16 ms·

> Yes, I’m aware that OEMs are supposed to give an option to turn it off, but when has this ever happened? Not "supposed to". They must. Why would OEMs waste t

by shawnz 14y ago

> Yes, I’m aware that OEMs are supposed to give an option to turn it off, but when has this ever happened? Not "supposed to". They must. Why would OEMs waste their time implementing Secure Boot for the logo program, and then disqualify themselves by hiding the option to disable it?

freehunter 14y ago
The ramp-up to Windows 8 has shown more FUD from the community than Microsoft would ever be capable of even with an unlimited marketing budget. This argument gets thrown around in every W8 conversation, "you won't be able to turn off secure boot!" The more it gets repeated, the more it might as well be true because people are going to believe it. I just ranted about this happening in the Apple community; don't think it doesn't happen everywhere [1]. It's toxic, and I really wish there was more critical thinking going on. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4377064 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4377064
- kbolino 14y ago
  Microsoft requires that Secure Boot can be disabled by the user, but only on x86. On ARM, the exact opposite is true: Microsoft requires that Secure Boot cannot be disabled by the user. For now, this doesn't really matter, but the situation may change if/when Windows on ARM becomes a serious platform.
  - freehunter 14y ago
    Microsoft requires that Secure Boot can be disabled by the user, but only on x86. On ARM, the exact opposite is true: Microsoft requires that Secure Boot cannot be disabled by the user. Yet it's completely accepted on the market leader's products. Funny how that works.
    - kbolino 14y ago
      Plenty of people have voiced objection to the lockdown of mobile devices by other vendors. The reason for this particular fooferaw, I think, is the misconception that this will apply to x86. It was my goal to clear that up, not to specifically endorse Microsoft-bashing.
- viraptor 14y ago
  Given the possibility to enforce it being always on... why would MS ever want to make it optional? I'm trying to apply critical thinking here, but can't figure out any reason to explain it. At the level that kind of decision/deal is made, what could prevent it? What's stopping them from pushing for that once secure boot is widespread enough?
  - freehunter 14y ago
    why would MS ever want to make it optional? ... what could prevent it? You do remember their lawsuit that spanned almost the entirety of the 90's, right? The lawsuit that cost them hundreds of millions and almost saw Microsoft split into two companies? That's what would prevent it. If they tried it again, the company would be shut down faster than you can say "But Apple does it too!" The fact that is in front of us right now is that Microsoft is requiring that it can be turned off. Requiring. So telling people that Microsoft won't let you turn it off goes so far beyond a flat-out, bald-faced lie: it becomes flagrant and malicious disinformation designed to scare people into staying away from a product, to scare them into continuing to spread this disinformation. Even you saying "but it could happen in the future!" is complete garbage. It's not relevant. There's no way to know what Microsoft will do in the future, so spreading rumors now based on pure speculation and fantasy... no, this goes beyond spreading rumors about the future, you're applying future speculation to what they're doing now, pretending that what you're fantasizing about is actually happening as we speak. It's not. You're not thinking critically, you're making wild accusations and presenting them as reality. In short, you're perpetuating fear, uncertainty, and doubt. This argument completely blows my mind.
    - viraptor 14y ago
      I just think that if they're really worried about such lawsuit, they would make secure boot also optional on ARM platforms. The way it's currently done just looks like a setup for making a claim on windows 9 release "see, there's nothing wrong with enforcing it on ARM, we're going to enforce it on x86 too".
      - freehunter 14y ago

by shawnz 14y ago

freehunter 14y ago

The ramp-up to Windows 8 has shown more FUD from the community than Microsoft would ever be capable of even with an unlimited marketing budget. This argument gets thrown around in every W8 conversation, "you won't be able to turn off secure boot!" The more it gets repeated, the more it might as well be true because people are going to believe it. I just ranted about this happening in the Apple community; don't think it doesn't happen everywhere [1]. It's toxic, and I really wish there was more critical thinking going on. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4377064 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4377064

kbolino 14y ago
Microsoft requires that Secure Boot can be disabled by the user, but only on x86. On ARM, the exact opposite is true: Microsoft requires that Secure Boot cannot be disabled by the user. For now, this doesn't really matter, but the situation may change if/when Windows on ARM becomes a serious platform.
- freehunter 14y ago
  Microsoft requires that Secure Boot can be disabled by the user, but only on x86. On ARM, the exact opposite is true: Microsoft requires that Secure Boot cannot be disabled by the user. Yet it's completely accepted on the market leader's products. Funny how that works.
  - kbolino 14y ago
    Plenty of people have voiced objection to the lockdown of mobile devices by other vendors. The reason for this particular fooferaw, I think, is the misconception that this will apply to x86. It was my goal to clear that up, not to specifically endorse Microsoft-bashing.
viraptor 14y ago
Given the possibility to enforce it being always on... why would MS ever want to make it optional? I'm trying to apply critical thinking here, but can't figure out any reason to explain it. At the level that kind of decision/deal is made, what could prevent it? What's stopping them from pushing for that once secure boot is widespread enough?
- freehunter 14y ago
  why would MS ever want to make it optional? ... what could prevent it? You do remember their lawsuit that spanned almost the entirety of the 90's, right? The lawsuit that cost them hundreds of millions and almost saw Microsoft split into two companies? That's what would prevent it. If they tried it again, the company would be shut down faster than you can say "But Apple does it too!" The fact that is in front of us right now is that Microsoft is requiring that it can be turned off. Requiring. So telling people that Microsoft won't let you turn it off goes so far beyond a flat-out, bald-faced lie: it becomes flagrant and malicious disinformation designed to scare people into staying away from a product, to scare them into continuing to spread this disinformation. Even you saying "but it could happen in the future!" is complete garbage. It's not relevant. There's no way to know what Microsoft will do in the future, so spreading rumors now based on pure speculation and fantasy... no, this goes beyond spreading rumors about the future, you're applying future speculation to what they're doing now, pretending that what you're fantasizing about is actually happening as we speak. It's not. You're not thinking critically, you're making wild accusations and presenting them as reality. In short, you're perpetuating fear, uncertainty, and doubt. This argument completely blows my mind.
  - viraptor 14y ago
    I just think that if they're really worried about such lawsuit, they would make secure boot also optional on ARM platforms. The way it's currently done just looks like a setup for making a claim on windows 9 release "see, there's nothing wrong with enforcing it on ARM, we're going to enforce it on x86 too".
    - freehunter 14y ago