Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Support the FSF: Help us stop Restricted Boot

fsf.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 65 posts

Re: Support the FSF: Help us stop Restricted Boot

#21

Post by woodchuck64 »

recoiledsnake wrote: post #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…

> 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.

Microsoft makes a desperate attempt to secure a small anchor amid the avalanche of ARM-Android and inadvertently breathes new life into the Microsoft Meme: "Growth by Stifling Competition." Almost feel sorry for them.

Re: Support the FSF: Help us stop Restricted Boot

#22

Post by josteink »

microtonal wrote: post #10
josteink wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I shouldn't need government regulation to ensure that things I own are truly mine.

Re: Support the FSF: Help us stop Restricted Boot

#23

Post by Karunamon »

rimantas wrote: post #14
josteink wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Every dollar spent in an Apple-store is money spent > against the core of your profession. Bullshit. Every dollar I spent on Apple was spent on top quality product which made me more productive. I also spend a considerable amount on App Store paying my colleagues for their work. > Stop spending money > there. And throw away your iPhones and Macbooks. They are > bad karma and software blood-money. Even more bullshit…

>Every dollar I spent on Apple was spent on top quality product which made me more productive.

And also spent on patent trolling, stifling innovation, and leading the world of tech down a dark path (locked down "app store", restricted boot, the whole nine yards).

How does it feel to know your money will go directly to the cause of stopping the evolution of technology in its tracks?

Your view is terrifically selfish if nothing else.

>You know why FSF avoid fighting Apple? It's because that fight would reveal that they are fighting in the wrong war.

Please explain.

Re: Support the FSF: Help us stop Restricted Boot

#24

Post by Karunamon »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #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.

They're only trying to redefine the label to fit what the software actually does. A strong argument could be made that the name as commonly accepted is a misnomer considering what the endgame is.

Digital "rights" management is not about your rights, it's about restricting you from doing what you want with your content. Hence the R in DRM now means "restriction".

Same concept here.

Re: Support the FSF: Help us stop Restricted Boot

#25

Post by SoftwareMaven »

mtgx wrote: post #11
microtonal wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think that argument is bogus. Having a way to sideload apps in your device or being able to install a different OS, doesn't make grandma more likely to get malware. It's the same model Apple is using in Mac OS X, too, now. Grandma will still use the same OS, and will still install apps from the app store, never knowing that she can even install apps from other places, and it will be just as easy as it if were witho…

Now compare the difference in malware between OS X and Android. There appears to be a correlation between how easy it is to circumvent the walls and the amount of malware within the garden.

I'd love to see some real research on causality here, though, because correlation obviously doesn't imply causation (though it is a reasonable hypothesis, IMO).

Re: Support the FSF: Help us stop Restricted Boot

#26

Post by JoshTriplett »

Karunamon wrote: post #24
JoshTriplett wrote: post #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.

They're only trying to redefine the label to fit what the software actually does. A strong argument could be made that the name as commonly accepted is a misnomer considering what the endgame is. Digital "rights" management is not about your rights, it's about restricting you from doing what you want with your content. Hence the R in DRM now means "restriction". Same concept here.

I agree with you entirely that the generally recognized name doesn't fit; however, I still think it seems counterproductive to attempt to rebrand it.

"Digital Restrictions Management" worked better, because it still abbreviates as DRM so nobody goes "huh?" when you say it. "Restricted Boot" needs an accompanying explanation to tie it to the official name of 'UEFI "Secure" Boot', which makes the attempted rebranding counterproductive.

Re: Support the FSF: Help us stop Restricted Boot

#27

Post by ansible »

recoiledsnake wrote: post #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…

Or better yet, support the development of truly open hardware with that money. There are a few small groups and companies doing this, like the proposal for a SoC that just had general purpose processor cores, instead of dedicated video encoders/decoders and 3D acceleration.

I am certainly willing to pay a bit extra (higher cost, reduced performance) for an open platform.

Re: Support the FSF: Help us stop Restricted Boot

#28

Post by ttflee »

recoiledsnake wrote: post #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…

Shouldn't they also sue Samsung for not letting me install android on my 43-inch LCD television?

Re: Support the FSF: Help us stop Restricted Boot

#29

Post by sounds »

wmf wrote: post #19
sounds wrote: post #15

This article has a better list of Linux OEMs than I've ever seen before. (Yeah, yeah, I need to get out more :) • Freedom Included http://freedomincluded.com • Garlach44 http://garlach44.eu • InaTux http://inatux.com • Lemote http://lemote.com/en • Los Alamos Computers http://laclinux.com • System76 https://www.system76.com • ThinkPenguin http://thinkpenguin.com • ZaReason http://zareason.com

Actually I think those OEMs need to get the word out more. It's not the customers' fault if a company has such poor marketing that prospective customers haven't even heard of it.

Sure.

But I want them to succeed-I'm willing to give them a little free publicity. (Emphasis on a little)

Post reply on HN