Hello Taiidan,
Taiidan@gmx.com:
On 04/12/2018 11:43 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
Taiidan@gmx.com wrote:
- Support for Secure Boot - would one approach be simpler than another?
SB was invented by MS for DRM, it serves no real security purpose IMO
I'd like to ask you to reconsider that opinion.
It is a fact not an opinion.
This is certainly an opinion. There are multiple reasons why Secure Boot came about, some of which were bad; others were not bad - Microsoft has improved the security of their operating system quite a lot since the days of Windows XP. And in any case, it is better than before from the perspective of an end user.
SB was invented for DRM - to prevent people from using linux or god forbid doing something that hollywood doesn't like. "embrace, extend, extinguish"
Good things don't have to be forced on people, but the SB 2.0 specs have quietly left out the owner control mandate after the attention has died down.
Secure Boot is mandated by Microsoft to provide Microsoft and Microsoft's customers (OEMs) security, and I think it's pretty effective.
But Secure Boot is also related to the security of individual computers and computer users, because it enables Microsoft and OEMs to establish a controllable, reliable and thus trustable chain of software from reset to desktop.
So microsoft should control the whole computing ecosystem? They are an obsolete relic that should not be permitted to strangle the competition in the crib.
Most people who buy computers are happy, because controlling the computer isn't as important as using the desktop
Why can't they simply provide people a choice? (ie: flip this switch to disable code signing enforcement)
Freedom is too dangerous? Hackers could turn their computer in to a bomb without secure boot?
which I think is fine.
I am surprised someone here would think that, moreso you of all people.
There will not be another future steve jobs or bill gates game changer decades from now just more mark zuckerberg's only allowed to make useless web apps.
Are developers not allowed to produce web applications? This makes no sense.
Even wealthy families won't think to purchase their children a developer computer by default and when a kid sees a "you are not allowed to install this" message he/she will simply give up and go on to something else like be a lawyer instead of a computer engineer; although even that developer model won't allow someone true access they will only be allowed to create surface level programs not low level programs, kernels, or firmware.
I believe one day even you the expert will not be allowed to run the code you please at least not without buying a very expensive "developer edition" laptop.
People think that phones were always a walled garden but I am old enough to remember when programs were installed on a palm treo similarly to the win32 model where you download a file from a website and double click without requiring permission to install something on *your phone*.
It is still possible to side-load applications on mobile phones - Android still gives users this option. So do smaller mobile operating systems, even Windows 10 Mobile (not Apple, though, sadly). Palm OS was wholly proprietary; Android at least has its base system as open source, and Google make large contributions to open source projects. The situation is somewhat better now, and there is a stronger open source software library behind Android than there ever was behind Palm OS.
Yet it's also a distraction, as it wasn't your actual point. The meat of your actual email seems to be as follows:
Let us hope the leaders of the future do not share your complacency or we are truly done for.
This is perhaps somewhat eloquent. However, saying people on the list are "complacent" strikes me as somewhat childish. I don't understand why you said this - are we not allowed to disagree without attacking other people's character? Yet I don't think this email is unique. I have seen other examples on this list.
A good motto is, if you wouldn't say it to yourself without taking offense, consider not saying it to others - when most people start to follow this motto, we can have more civil discussion together.
All the best, - Duncan