Microsoft Has Managed to Make GNU/Linux Users Scared of Updating Their GNU/Linux PCs (Thanks to UEFI 'Secure' Boot's Boosters!)
A few hours ago in Gemini and in Gopher someone wrote about the UEFI factor: "To give me an even better bit of happy news, a friendly face I met in a private authors chat helped me fix the UEFI problem I have with my laptop, and now I'm no longer worried that a `sudo apt upgrade` is going to kill my ability to boot this poor Dell Latitude, as it did over the last few days."
This should not be happening at all and it would not happen in the first place if not for some Microsofters working to thwart antitrust action (an actual complaint against Microsoft). The legacy of their sabotage remains not just persistent but also more menacing over time (more security flaws and machines that ship bootlocked without the option to 'unlock').
3 days ago we published "UEFI 'Secure Boot' Once Again Bricking PCs and Fake Security Models Are Perishing in Geminispace"; it seems like a recurring theme. People become aware of this vandalism by Microsoft and its Microsofters who were effectively moles inside Linux.
How many people know who's responsible for this mess? How many people know that the critics (who warned about this mess all along) are subjected to extreme harassment and even litigation from the perpetrators? The Microsofters have nothing left to do but attack critics.
Apropos fake 'security', yesterday we saw the Linux Foundation's fake 'security' ploy (LE) perishing further to just 4% of Geminispace. Within less than a day it dropped again (to 3.9%). To quote Lupa statistics: "2518 (90.7 %) capsules are self-signed, 107 (3.9 %) use the Certificate Authority Let's Encrypt, 150 (5.4 %) are signed by another CA (may be not a trusted one)."
3.9 percent is not much and judging by how quickly this falls, maybe it'll be down to 1% or 2% by year's end. The growing component up there is self-signed; that's the way it ought to be and should have been all along. The users should decide whether to trust themselves. Any changes in signatures and such can be flagged on a cautionary basis alone (if at all). Sinister companies are miles worse than supposedly 'dumb' users. █
