We Could Dual-Boot Back in the 1990s, Why Has This Become So Difficult?
8 hours ago:
8-12 hours ago:
Putting aside the fact that BitLocker is a giant back door [1, 2] misleadingly disguised and falsely marketed as confidentiality (and still, nonetheless, promoted/advocated by the same sociopathic people who pushed "secure boot" into Linux), consider the above.
How hard can it (or should it) be to have two operating systems on the same computer? We could all do this when I was a teenager, it wasn't hard to do, but Microsoft keeps complicating things, then it calls it "security" (when it is the exact opposite of that). They keep lying to us with solutionism. As Andy explained it last week: "The supposed need for growth creates "solutionism"; the gratuitous creation of unnecessary products to fix problems caused by other non-functional products. This creates a seemingly limitless market in accordance with a Broken Window Fallacy, where causing problems and harm seems to be a generator of "wealth"."
Has computer security improved? No! It only got worse.
Complex systems are bound to have holes and in Microsoft's case bug/back doors are the actual objective. Screwing around with GNU/Linux (while pretending to "love Linux") is another objective.
We intend to revisit the issue in the coming days, as we'll start a new series regarding the "UEFI 9/11" (2025) aftermath. And "on dual boot," one reader said, "more can be in the [future articles] about how Microsoft's updates break it". It happened not too long ago. Microsoft sites tired to make excuses for it, parroting what Microsoft had said before it tried to change the news cycle and calm down the rage (talking about WINE source code and another 'Linuxy' topic a few days later). █
"Where are we on this Jihad?"
--Bill Gates referring to his own attacks on Linux [1, 2, 3, 4]