ccc46e19c6698f24b1a7024160a14a66
Users Should Trust Themselves, Not Microsoft
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0
THE other day in IRC the subject of UEFI "Restricted Boot" came up again. 'Gulagboy' continues to defend Microsoft's interests (he never stopped) and he's assaulting a lot more than just GNU/Linux users.
"The ludicrous idea of protecting us...from us... by putting Microsoft in charge of everything never made sense at all."The latest on this matter (UEFI ‘Security’ is Totally Hopeless, Even a Paradox) showed how the UEFI malware circulating nowadays serves to prove that "Restricted Boot" was never about security. Basically we won the argument on this "trust" fallacy and it goes beyond firmwares (it's the same with http/s, sigStore (applications) and other things). The ludicrous idea of protecting us...from us... by putting Microsoft in charge of everything never made sense at all. In fact, misplacing trust and letting Microsoft control GNU/Linux and BSD is something worthy of The Onion.
As someone put it yesterday, the "Restricted Boot" signing was never about security as the public and the politicians think of it, but instead about job security and market lock-in for Microsofters.
Or, as I put it yesterday in IRC, the purpose of 'secure' boot, all along, was to shun GNU/Linux and BSD; now people realise it's not security and won't treat its proponent as security people. They never were. They' re just Microsoft shills, hailed by other Microsoft shills, even convicted criminals. ⬆