Not a fan of windows, but i hate this FUD against TPM&Secureboot
SecureBoot is itself FUD. It doesn't protect regular users in any way.
Microsoft's big lie: Your computer is fine, and you don't need to buy a new one
101–110 of 156 posts
Re: Microsoft's big lie: Your computer is fine, and you don't need to buy a new one
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think Windows is using TPM for anything useful. As for Secure boot, its main goal seems to be preventing you from installing non Windows operating systems.
If you own the computer, you can enroll your own keys and sign any operating system you want. The UEFI vendors don't necessarily make this easy to do, nor do they support it in a consistent way, but it's there. Of course, Microsoft has no incentive to make this any easier, since their keys come preloaded on every computer. The primary function of Secure Boot is to protect against bootkits. In a way, you're right, bec…
> If you own the computer, you can enroll your own keys and sign any operating system you want. The UEFI vendors don't necessarily make this easy to do, nor do they support it in a consistent way, but it's there
This is not unilaterally true and there is no reason they won't try to push more locked down computers now that the base technology is accepted.
> The primary function of Secure Boot is to protect against bootkits.
Which are pure FUD when it comes to regular users. Once your computer is owned to the point where a bootkit can install itself all the user data (what actually matters) is already long gone. Secure boot isn't going to help you one bit.
Re: Microsoft's big lie: Your computer is fine, and you don't need to buy a new one
#103Not a fan of windows, but i hate this FUD against TPM&Secureboot
It's not Fear, Uncertainty or Doubt. Nobody serious is saying that TPMs are a bad idea. They are saying they are not required and they are fucking correct to say it, and especially when folks are already suffering under a cost of living hike like few we've seen, plus Trump's stupid tariffs, it's horseshit to effectively hold people's security hostage to them buying an entire new fucking computer. You can disable the…
> Nobody serious is saying that TPMs are a bad idea.
I am. They by definition mean you no longer have full authority over your computer which is unacceptable. Even their name is orwellian - they are all about NOT trusting the user.
> They are the definition of not required.
They will be once support is widespread enough. And they will be used against your interests.
Re: Microsoft's big lie: Your computer is fine, and you don't need to buy a new one
#104Only in software there seems to exist this idea that everything is free.
Not true but you're right that many other areas still need to catch up on open culture.
Re: Microsoft's big lie: Your computer is fine, and you don't need to buy a new one
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
… and all those things that Windows 10 “supports“ can be much more easily bypassed without TPM and secure boot. Lots of things not to like about Win11 but force-dragging their manufacturers and customers into 2010s era security is long overdue.
> much more easily bypassed without TPM and secure boot How does secure boot help against a browser vulnerability exploitation? Especially on Windows? And if we're talking local attacks, there's always the $5 wrench to bypass the TPM. > force-dragging their manufacturers and customers into 2010s era security is long overdue. Spoken like someone who gets the newest tech toy without having to think if they can afford i…
> How does secure boot help against a browser vulnerability exploitation? Especially on Windows?
It will eventually do that by only allowing you to run microsoft-approved signed software. Of course no sane person should want that but it's what all this is building towards.
Re: Microsoft's big lie: Your computer is fine, and you don't need to buy a new one
#106Microsoft's latest lie is primed to created the largest single E-waste event in human history, argues Timothy Allen, Principal Engineer at the Wharton School, in an article for Technical.ly. The article gives practical suggestions, and argues the migration from Windows 10 to Linux Mint is easier than Windows 10 to Windows 11.
I won’t use Windows if I had a choice.
You always have a choice.
Re: Microsoft's big lie: Your computer is fine, and you don't need to buy a new one
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
> running Linux is fucking hard Changing your habits is hard. But that's also true for Windows > Mac. Linux (Mint) in itself isn't hard. You need to understand what's different. If you have no hardware issue, the biggest different lies in "how do I install [software]" ? But now most distros (incl. Linux Mint) are hidding the package managers (including flatpack which provides a lot of software) behind nice "App Store…
The bigger issue is probably less "how do I install software" and more "how do I not install malware". I'm not saying that Linux is more prone to malware, but that the steps we teach people to avoid issues on Windows don't translate over.
The situation is roughly similar though: only install software from trusted sources. The only real difference is that Linux distros come with a built in trusted source of programs that likely covers almost all of your needs.
Re: Microsoft's big lie: Your computer is fine, and you don't need to buy a new one
#108"Much of this sluggishness, or "lag," comes from Microsoft adding ever-more advertising and tracking."
Those replying may or may not find objectionable
(a) "sluggishness",
(b) "ever-more advertising and tracking" or
(c) both (a) and (b)
Even if a default Windows install was fast, some people might still object to (b)
Re: Microsoft's big lie: Your computer is fine, and you don't need to buy a new one
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and argues the migration from Windows 10 to Linux Mint is easier than Windows 10 to Windows 11. This message needs to stop. I use both heavily, because 1. I need to work and 2. I believe it's my duty to attempt to escape the prison MS/Apple/et al have built around us. But running Linux is fucking hard, unless all you need is available in a browser, and even then... If someone is going in expecting an easy replaceme…
> running Linux is fucking hard Changing your habits is hard. But that's also true for Windows > Mac. Linux (Mint) in itself isn't hard. You need to understand what's different. If you have no hardware issue, the biggest different lies in "how do I install [software]" ? But now most distros (incl. Linux Mint) are hidding the package managers (including flatpack which provides a lot of software) behind nice "App Store…
I have decades of experience with both Windows and Linux (many machines, distros, package managers(or lack of), DEs, terminals), but only 2 years with Mac. Getting a hang of the Mac was hard, especially since I also had to still switch between all OSes regularly. New environments and habits are hard, yeah, but Linux is objectively much harsher than most, it's not because I'm used to some particular DE.
Re: Microsoft's big lie: Your computer is fine, and you don't need to buy a new one
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. If a vendor says “we aren’t going to support this product after X date - don’t call, don’t write”, that’s EoL. Doesn’t matter if they do one off fixes because they decide that’s the right thing to do - product is still EoL. You won’t get support if, say, Word crashes due to a core library bug. You can’t rely on them doing regular testing. EoL. Doesn’t matter if the DoD comes to some ridiculously expensive bespoke…
> Doesn’t matter if they do one off fixes because they decide that’s the right thing to do - product is still EoL. You won’t get support if, say, Word crashes due to a core library bug You don't get that under regular contracts either. There are tons of bugs, including crashing ones going back decades. EOL either means "no more fixes period" or means nothing.
> You don't get that under regular contracts either.
Absolutely false. Of course vendors sometimes mark things WONTFIX, but Microsoft regularly produces bugfixes for supported products based on issues identified in support cases... As does every other reputable software vendor.
> EOL either means "no more fixes period" or means nothing.
Well, I disagree. Can you call in and get support with a support contract? Can you get a support contract without a one-off negotiation? Does the vendor regularly produce bug fixes -- not just emergency security fixes to allay a PR disaster -- for the product? No to all three? EoL.
Most important of all, has the vendor signaled that they will not support the product after X date and therefore a customer without a bespoke contract cannot rely on said support? EoL.