Live data from Hacker News

Support the FSF: Help us stop Restricted Boot

fsf.org

1–10 of 65 posts

Re: Support the FSF: Help us stop Restricted Boot

#2
Secure boot is fantastic for users IFF they can change the master keys on the hardware. But you would have to be a complete idiot to trust that Microsoft or Apple would allow that for any longer than it takes to make the hardware ubiquitous; then the iron bars come crashing down around us.

I wish the best of luck to FSF in stopping this. I don't have much I can donate, but I hope my little bit of support will help them.

Re: Support the FSF: Help us stop Restricted Boot

#4
While the name "Secure Boot" seems like horribly misleading doublespeak, this still seems like a case where giving something a more descriptive name results in less effective communication. Calling it 'UEFI "Secure" Boot' would have sufficed, along with describing it as "restricted boot", but attempting to rebrand it seems like an ineffective and actively harmful marketing tactic here.

Re: Support the FSF: Help us stop Restricted Boot

#5
I disagree with secure boot on regular desktops but I'm not sure how I feel about it on ARM devices (specifically tablets). I feel like the only people who are going to change the OS on a tablet are geeks - it won't affect ordinary consumers who won't want to change the OS especially as tablet hardware and software is so integrated.

Is it possible to hack this or will it even affect geeks who do want to install the OS of their choice?

Re: Support the FSF: Help us stop Restricted Boot

#6
>We will fight Microsoft's attempt at enforcing Restricted Boot on ARM devices like smartphones and tablets. Like any other computer, users must be able to install free software operating systems on these devices. We will monitor Microsoft's behavior to make sure they do not deceive the public again by expanding these restrictions to other kinds of systems

I love how Windows RT devices which are struggling to ship a couple million are "ARM devices" but there is absolutely no mention of tens of millions of iPads, Kindle and some other Android tablets being sold with locked bootloaders.

Same with phones, are WP8 phones with a 3.5% marketshare(albeit increasing) a much bigger threat to user and software freedom than iPhones? Atleast with Microsoft you have the choice of OEMs, whereas with Apple you have no freedom of choosing the manufacturer. I think mentioning Apple undermines their point in such a serious way that the FSF(and Mozilla) hasn't mentioned it any of their long blog posts on Secure Boot.

Also, with the PCs sold being mandated by Microsoft to have a way for an end user to disable Secure Boot and Add/Remove their own keys, the user is completely in control and can even remove Microsoft's key if they so wish.

US $350,000 is a LOT of money to waste going after this, imagine what could be done with that money if it was spent on things like OpenOffice, Samba and other projects sorely lacking in money and resources. I think this is an exercise in baiting Microsoft haters part with their money rather than any productive exercise to increase computing freedom. I hope donators consider better uses of their money.

Re: Support the FSF: Help us stop Restricted Boot

#7

I disagree with secure boot on regular desktops but I'm not sure how I feel about it on ARM devices (specifically tablets). I feel like the only people who are going to change the OS on a tablet are geeks - it won't affect ordinary consumers who won't want to change the OS especially as tablet hardware and software is so integrated. Is it possible to hack this or will it even affect geeks who do want to install the O…

Why make the difference between the two? What's so special about tablets that they deserve restricted boot, but PC's do not? They're just all computers. What's worse is that in the future these computers will be a lot more popular than PC's ever were. That means more people will be restricted by default.

Most tablets and phones just happen to come with a different chip architecture, but there is nothing inherent to them that demands they should be restricted compared to the x86 alternatives.

Re: Support the FSF: Help us stop Restricted Boot

#8

>We will fight Microsoft's attempt at enforcing Restricted Boot on ARM devices like smartphones and tablets. Like any other computer, users must be able to install free software operating systems on these devices. We will monitor Microsoft's behavior to make sure they do not deceive the public again by expanding these restrictions to other kinds of systems I love how Windows RT devices which are struggling to ship a…

Yeah. I find it odd that despite Apple winning the world-championship in patent-trolling and is leading the fight for closed systems and walled gardens, FSF still decides to go after anyone but Apple.

Despite this tarnished image of a former tech-innovist, does the FSF really still feel it's impossible to fight the root evil here because of public perception?

Is it only picking on Microsoft because that is easier to amass support against?

We, as hackers and developers, should support this. We should fight closed systems. We should fight against the forces against general purpose computing (Cory Doctorow has a nice speach on this) and we should fight those who seek to criminalize writing code because somewhere some troll has a vague patent with no implementation covering your work.

So yes. Support the FSF on this. But also boycot those who are the chief offenders here. Every dollar spent in an Apple-store is money spent against the core of your profession. Stop spending money there. And throw away your iPhones and Macbooks. They are bad karma and software blood-money.

Re: Support the FSF: Help us stop Restricted Boot

#9
post #8

>We will fight Microsoft's attempt at enforcing Restricted Boot on ARM devices like smartphones and tablets. Like any other computer, users must be able to install free software operating systems on these devices. We will monitor Microsoft's behavior to make sure they do not deceive the public again by expanding these restrictions to other kinds of systems I love how Windows RT devices which are struggling to ship a…

Yeah. I find it odd that despite Apple winning the world-championship in patent-trolling and is leading the fight for closed systems and walled gardens, FSF still decides to go after anyone but Apple. Despite this tarnished image of a former tech-innovist, does the FSF really still feel it's impossible to fight the root evil here because of public perception? Is it only picking on Microsoft because that is easier to…

I agree FSF should fight against Apple, too, and even though they would make a lot of enemies because of it, I think making a lot of enemies this way and becoming that controversial is a lot better than being obscure, because in the same time they'd be gaining a lot of allies, too. I think FSF fighting against Apple's closed policies would ultimately make them more popular and help them.

That being said I don't really think that not naming Apple right now, which already has an established closed platform (therefore uphill battle), detracts from them trying to stop Windows 8 machines becoming as closed as iPads before they even get a chance to take off the ground. Better (and easier) to kill off a bad idea early on.

Re: Support the FSF: Help us stop Restricted Boot

#10
post #8

>We will fight Microsoft's attempt at enforcing Restricted Boot on ARM devices like smartphones and tablets. Like any other computer, users must be able to install free software operating systems on these devices. We will monitor Microsoft's behavior to make sure they do not deceive the public again by expanding these restrictions to other kinds of systems I love how Windows RT devices which are struggling to ship a…

Yeah. I find it odd that despite Apple winning the world-championship in patent-trolling and is leading the fight for closed systems and walled gardens, FSF still decides to go after anyone but Apple. Despite this tarnished image of a former tech-innovist, does the FSF really still feel it's impossible to fight the root evil here because of public perception? Is it only picking on Microsoft because that is easier to…

We should fight against the forces against general purpose computing

I have very mixed feelings about this very topic. As a developer, I completely agree with you. Hardware should be hackable and software replaceable.

But there's also another side: computing has become a lot easier for the average user. E.g. the iPhone and the iPad were the first computers that my mother really grasped and was able to use comfortably on her own. The limited walled garden approach to computing ensures that she doesn't accidentally install malware, etc. In the end, I think the secure, walled gardens are useful to the average user.

Of course, the inherent danger is unfair competition - the gatekeeper can decide to reject software whenever it wants and impose fees and crazy rules. Since in EU, we are not completely adverse to government intervention, I think it is best that the European union would regulate such walled gardens, e.g. by limiting the percentage that the gatekeeper can charge, by requiring that the gatekeeper accepts all software that is not malicious, and requiring that a method should be required to unlock hardware. I that putting think such regulations into place will be much more effective than fighting windmills.

Post reply on HN