4 ms·
This is, in fact, the point. They do not want the support burden and negative security posture of supporting billions of computers that cannot have a locked boo
by freeone3000 1y ago
This is, in fact, the point. They do not want the support burden and negative security posture of supporting billions of computers that cannot have a locked bootloader.
- alyandon 1y agoI get that security is part of the posturing - I just think it is tone deaf to the reality that not everyone is going to be willing to spend $500-$2000 USD just to be able to "run" Windows 11. I have friends and family that will continue to run EOL Windows 10 which is worse unless I convince them to migrate to Linux.
- Zambyte 1y agoThe legally enforced monopoly on support is to blame for this, not well-functioning hardware.
- skydhash 1y agoNegative security?
- hulitu 1y ago> Negative security? If you employ snake oil like Crowdstrike or "secure boot" (when the key stays on MS servers).
- beeflet 1y agoLinux has no problem supporting pretty much every PC hardware ever made, any filesystem, etc. So while it might reduce their costs, they are hedging customers every generation
- freeone3000 1y agoLinux Foundation doesn’t “support” anything in the sense met above. They do not provide antivirus updates, or a help line, or consultation services. They are not responsible in any way if every device running linux gets hacked. It’s simply not their problem — but it is Microsoft’s.