4 ms·

>on their EOL page it lists places you can donate your old non-working hardware to. Forcing users to do what? Buy new overpriced hardware when what they have is

>on their EOL page it lists places you can donate your old non-working hardware to. Forcing users to do what? Buy new overpriced hardware when what they have is fine? Devils advocate. Everyone really should be on Secure Boot / Bitlocker / TPM2.0 in the Windows space. Windows 11 is really there as a checkpoint to force people to upgrade to more secure hardware. If you dont care about security, you probably dont care about security updates, you can remain with Windows 10. Thats not to say that they went about this in a pro consumer way. Its been bungled. But specifically on the point of hardware upgrades, for your average windows user the hardware isnt really "fine" as you put it. >Here's the thing, I started up an old iPad last night and the e-mail no longer exists nor can be created, so I can't do a lost password, I can't log in, so I can't install apps, or even format the device without some 'Account Lock' On the apple front, they get 10x the amount of flak for "enabling" stolen hardware to be reformatted and reused, than they get for bricking people who lose access to an account. Recovery is expendable in Apple town. Recovery of iCloud accounts enabled identity theft and personal photos of celebs to be released. Recovery of hardware enables theft. Its a losing proposition. >That ain't the way. Your computer. Your choice. We really need a hardware path without conflicting priorities.

Lammy 1y ago
> If you dont care about security Microsoft's idea of Security is security from me, not security for me. They use this overloaded language because it's so hard to argue against. It's a thought-terminating cliché. Oh you must not care about being secure huh???
- protocolture 1y ago
  Microsofts idea of security is security from being blamed for large scale breaches. I dont think they think about you or me at all tbh. My point was, if you dont care about Secure Boot / Bitlocker / TPM2.0, then you probably dont also care about security updates. Not whatever insult you thought I was making. If your thoughts were terminated, that was entirely self inflicted.
  - josephcsible 1y ago
    > if you dont care about Secure Boot / Bitlocker / TPM2.0, then you probably dont also care about security updates Huh? I certainly care about the latter but not the former, and I doubt I'm in the minority.
    - protocolture 1y ago
      Why, if you dont mind my asking? And how long would you expect Microsoft to write updates for computers with insecure boot chains, and secure boot chains? How much should they spend on mitigations for classes of attack that you can shut down just by updating? Why would they risk being seen to support a platform, that they consider a potential vector of incredibly bad PR, just for end user convenience? They have been browbeaten into being extremely security conscious, especially after the SMB stuff. Personally, my Win 10 laptops are becoming Debian laptops as god intended.
      - josephcsible 1y ago
        > Why, if you dont mind my asking? Because I care that I'm secure, but I don't care that my computer isn't secure from me. > how long would you expect Microsoft to write updates for computers with insecure boot chains, and secure boot chains? Forever, because the same code works for both unless they go out of their way to do extra work for it not to. > How much should they spend on mitigations for classes of attack that you can shut down just by updating? There are basically zero attacks against ordinary consumers that SB/TPM protect from. The kinds of attacks regular people need to worry about are resolved through regular updates that don't need those things. > Why would they risk being seen to support a platform, that they consider a potential vector of incredibly bad PR, just for end user convenience? What are you talking about? There's no bad PR in allowing SB/TPM to be off. The bad PR comes from requiring them to be on. > They have been browbeaten into being extremely security conscious, especially after the SMB stuff. SB/TPM aren't actual security. They're DRM masquerading as security. > Personally, my Win 10 laptops are becoming Debian laptops as god intended. That's good, but it doesn't invalidate any of the above.
      - 1y ago
Xelbair 1y ago
>Devils advocate. Everyone really should be on Secure Boot / Bitlocker / TPM2.0 in the Windows space. nope. only useful for corporate setting. We should be able to run anything we want, however we want, without any arbitrary requirements by MS. Especially if it was proven already that it isn't a hard requirement to run the OS - just an arbitrary setting. It just paves road for more invasive DRM and even more locked down systems. If they have issue with crashes, and taking blame for corporate AV failures - don't give out kernel level access to them. >Recovery is expendable in Apple town. Recovery of iCloud accounts enabled identity theft and personal photos of celebs to be released. Recovery of hardware enables theft. Its a losing proposition. I don't care as a customer. I want my data, I don't care about corporate profit margins - and I shouldn't need to. Data theft is pure service issue of them not vetting recovery enough - due to cutting costs on it.
- protocolture 1y ago
  >nope. only useful for corporate setting. We should be able to run anything we want, however we want, without any arbitrary requirements by MS. Especially if it was proven already that it isn't a hard requirement to run the OS - just an arbitrary setting. Right, crazy I swear I hung a lantern on that, implying you could just keep using Windows 10. >I don't care as a customer. I want my data, I don't care about corporate profit margins - and I shouldn't need to. Data theft is pure service issue of them not vetting recovery enough - due to cutting costs on it. Right, crazy again I swear I thought I wrapped up by saying we needed a hardware path without conflicting priorities.
- p_ing 1y ago
  They're not "arbitrary requirements". They're requirements to enable VBS, one of the largest leaps in kernel security history.
  - Xelbair 1y ago
    arbitrary requirements as in they could be disabled quite easily in early w11 builds by flipping a flag. There's nothing depending on it that prevents OS to run.
weikju 1y ago
The problem is the protection against malware is rolled in with protection against the end user. This leads down a dark path and it seems we collectively have decided end users are less important than the corporate profits and protection against malware.
- protocolture 1y ago
  Microsoft wants you to have a laptop with the goal that you will use it to log on to work services or play games. Apple wants you to have a tablet to spend money on apps. You need hardware built outside of that paradigm to have a hope of avoiding a mess of locked down anti consumer nonsense.

Lammy 1y ago

> If you dont care about security Microsoft's idea of Security is security from me, not security for me. They use this overloaded language because it's so hard to argue against. It's a thought-terminating cliché. Oh you must not care about being secure huh???

protocolture 1y ago
Microsofts idea of security is security from being blamed for large scale breaches. I dont think they think about you or me at all tbh. My point was, if you dont care about Secure Boot / Bitlocker / TPM2.0, then you probably dont also care about security updates. Not whatever insult you thought I was making. If your thoughts were terminated, that was entirely self inflicted.
- josephcsible 1y ago
  > if you dont care about Secure Boot / Bitlocker / TPM2.0, then you probably dont also care about security updates Huh? I certainly care about the latter but not the former, and I doubt I'm in the minority.
  - protocolture 1y ago
    Why, if you dont mind my asking? And how long would you expect Microsoft to write updates for computers with insecure boot chains, and secure boot chains? How much should they spend on mitigations for classes of attack that you can shut down just by updating? Why would they risk being seen to support a platform, that they consider a potential vector of incredibly bad PR, just for end user convenience? They have been browbeaten into being extremely security conscious, especially after the SMB stuff. Personally, my Win 10 laptops are becoming Debian laptops as god intended.
    - josephcsible 1y ago
      > Why, if you dont mind my asking? Because I care that I'm secure, but I don't care that my computer isn't secure from me. > how long would you expect Microsoft to write updates for computers with insecure boot chains, and secure boot chains? Forever, because the same code works for both unless they go out of their way to do extra work for it not to. > How much should they spend on mitigations for classes of attack that you can shut down just by updating? There are basically zero attacks against ordinary consumers that SB/TPM protect from. The kinds of attacks regular people need to worry about are resolved through regular updates that don't need those things. > Why would they risk being seen to support a platform, that they consider a potential vector of incredibly bad PR, just for end user convenience? What are you talking about? There's no bad PR in allowing SB/TPM to be off. The bad PR comes from requiring them to be on. > They have been browbeaten into being extremely security conscious, especially after the SMB stuff. SB/TPM aren't actual security. They're DRM masquerading as security. > Personally, my Win 10 laptops are becoming Debian laptops as god intended. That's good, but it doesn't invalidate any of the above.
    - 1y ago

Xelbair 1y ago

>Devils advocate. Everyone really should be on Secure Boot / Bitlocker / TPM2.0 in the Windows space. nope. only useful for corporate setting. We should be able to run anything we want, however we want, without any arbitrary requirements by MS. Especially if it was proven already that it isn't a hard requirement to run the OS - just an arbitrary setting. It just paves road for more invasive DRM and even more locked down systems. If they have issue with crashes, and taking blame for corporate AV failures - don't give out kernel level access to them. >Recovery is expendable in Apple town. Recovery of iCloud accounts enabled identity theft and personal photos of celebs to be released. Recovery of hardware enables theft. Its a losing proposition. I don't care as a customer. I want my data, I don't care about corporate profit margins - and I shouldn't need to. Data theft is pure service issue of them not vetting recovery enough - due to cutting costs on it.

protocolture 1y ago
>nope. only useful for corporate setting. We should be able to run anything we want, however we want, without any arbitrary requirements by MS. Especially if it was proven already that it isn't a hard requirement to run the OS - just an arbitrary setting. Right, crazy I swear I hung a lantern on that, implying you could just keep using Windows 10. >I don't care as a customer. I want my data, I don't care about corporate profit margins - and I shouldn't need to. Data theft is pure service issue of them not vetting recovery enough - due to cutting costs on it. Right, crazy again I swear I thought I wrapped up by saying we needed a hardware path without conflicting priorities.
p_ing 1y ago
They're not "arbitrary requirements". They're requirements to enable VBS, one of the largest leaps in kernel security history.
- Xelbair 1y ago
  arbitrary requirements as in they could be disabled quite easily in early w11 builds by flipping a flag. There's nothing depending on it that prevents OS to run.

weikju 1y ago

The problem is the protection against malware is rolled in with protection against the end user. This leads down a dark path and it seems we collectively have decided end users are less important than the corporate profits and protection against malware.

protocolture 1y ago
Microsoft wants you to have a laptop with the goal that you will use it to log on to work services or play games. Apple wants you to have a tablet to spend money on apps. You need hardware built outside of that paradigm to have a hope of avoiding a mess of locked down anti consumer nonsense.