The Man Who Helped Microsoft Kill Linux is Trying to Delay Our Lawsuits Against Him
While moonlighting with the people who try to cancel the founder of GNU/Linux (for personal gain):
As noted here yesterday, Microsoft money is being leveraged against us in an effort to silence us. By conservative estimates, and based on court documents submitted by them, they're prepared to spend over a million dollars on lawyers, fighting against me and my wife.
Does this sound insane? Because they are insane, and they serve Microsoft from within our ranks. If you talk about it, they'll issue threats and defame you.
And what is it that we oppose anyway? Consider this new report: "Battlefield 6 requires Secure Boot to run and it's coming to more games soon, including Call of Duty Black Ops 7: here's what it is, why Linux gamers are mad about it, and how to enable it" (wrong solution).
We saw more reports to the same effect ("DRM and Fake Security as Attack Vector Against Games on GNU/Linux") in recent days. Microsoft influence in gaming studios? Notice what it says below: "It's a Windows thing."
They try to turn "Linux" into Windows or put Microsoft in control of GNU/Linux. That's what 'secure' boot is all about; Microsoft gets to remotely brick people's GNU/Linux setups while blackmailing people who oppose that. MJG has been doing this for many years already [1, 2]. He's the prime proponent of 'secure' boot, who is moreover tag-teaming with a Microsoft employee who strangled women. That says a lot about his poor view of women (they too learn it the hard way).
"The clock is ticking down in regards to the certificate time bomb which Microsoft planted in restricted boot with the help of MJG," a reader has told us regarding yesterday's article entitled "Eventually UEFI 'Secure Boot' Will be Dropped (Users Will Demand Its Removal and Boycott Its Pushers)".
Secure boot ("Restricted boot" is the term used by the FSF, which does not recognise it as a security feature at all!) "will only remain optional for a while longer," the reader opines. "Turning it off will cease to be a possibility when the interests working via Microsoft decide they can get away with making it mandatory and lock out Linux and *BSD from the desktop permanently."
See the report about computer games above. Whose decision was that? 'Former' Microsoft staff? What's the logic here? Modifying a program makes that program illegal? An act of 'piracy'? As the FSF put it: "we are concerned that Microsoft and hardware manufacturers will implement these boot restrictions in a way that will prevent users from booting anything other than Windows. In this case, we are better off calling the technology Restricted Boot, since such a requirement would be a disastrous restriction on computer users and not a security feature at all." They spoke of "freedom to install free software", not just distros in a state approved by Microsoft. There are already OEMs that ship computers which refuse to boot anything other than Windows, so what the FSF said turned out to be true. It's the "Stallman was right" phenomenon, albeit at an institutional level/scale.
Last month we said in relation to this: Our Three Lawsuits Against Microsofters Are About to Become a Lot More Relevant to GNU/Linux
Remember that 'secure' boot is not - and never was - about security. It's about Microsoft controlling people's hardware, no matter what they run on that hardware. █
