▲ 679 ▼ How long do we have before PCs get locked bootloaders and corporations ban installation of "non-approved" software? (for context: Google is restricting sideloading worldwide on Android ETA 2027) (sh.itjust.works) submitted 11 months ago by DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world 245 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] calamityjanitor@lemmy.world 91 points 11 months ago (2 children) It's called secure boot and it's been around for over 10 years now. permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] SkavarSharraddas@gehirneimer.de 40 points 11 months ago (1 child) And the first iteration was much more locked down, only got changed after public complaints. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] mugita_sokiovt@discuss.online 11 points 11 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SkavarSharraddas@gehirneimer.de 21 points 11 months ago IIRC the first draft had the keys all controlled by Microsoft, with no option to use your own, and no option to disable it. Don't think the GPL had anything to do with it directly, though it was people wanting to use Linux (and other systems than the one pre-installed) on their own hardware that complained. permalink fedilink source parent [–] vividspecter@aussie.zone 10 points 11 months ago This isn't quite the same thing. I'd say locked bootloaders are the Android analog, and they are already less likely to be user unlockable than the typical PC (and the situation is getting worse). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SkavarSharraddas@gehirneimer.de 40 points 11 months ago (1 child) And the first iteration was much more locked down, only got changed after public complaints. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] mugita_sokiovt@discuss.online 11 points 11 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SkavarSharraddas@gehirneimer.de 21 points 11 months ago IIRC the first draft had the keys all controlled by Microsoft, with no option to use your own, and no option to disable it. Don't think the GPL had anything to do with it directly, though it was people wanting to use Linux (and other systems than the one pre-installed) on their own hardware that complained. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] mugita_sokiovt@discuss.online 11 points 11 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SkavarSharraddas@gehirneimer.de 21 points 11 months ago IIRC the first draft had the keys all controlled by Microsoft, with no option to use your own, and no option to disable it. Don't think the GPL had anything to do with it directly, though it was people wanting to use Linux (and other systems than the one pre-installed) on their own hardware that complained. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SkavarSharraddas@gehirneimer.de 21 points 11 months ago IIRC the first draft had the keys all controlled by Microsoft, with no option to use your own, and no option to disable it. Don't think the GPL had anything to do with it directly, though it was people wanting to use Linux (and other systems than the one pre-installed) on their own hardware that complained. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] vividspecter@aussie.zone 10 points 11 months ago This isn't quite the same thing. I'd say locked bootloaders are the Android analog, and they are already less likely to be user unlockable than the typical PC (and the situation is getting worse). permalink fedilink source parent