Microsoft 'Secure' Boot Versus Dual Boot With GNU/Linux
3 hours ago:
Days ago: Repetition of Last Summer (Microsoft Breaking Dual-Boot Systems) | We Could Dual-Boot Back in the 1990s, Why Has This Become So Difficult?
Microsoft now admits (in "Secure Boot Update Process") that expired certificates are causing and/or will cause problems.
Why does the Linux Foundation not talk about this? What about OSI? Heck, what about the distros?
See, they're meant to assume everything is OK. It's the same with criticism of Wayland, Rust and systemd. We've meant to think that no legitimate criticism exists or should be entertained. As Andy put it 2 days ago:
The capacity to be critical and sceptical about technology is a rare superpower. Only the best security people have it. Those civilians that do are quickly marginalised by an almost instinctive group-think."Luddite" is a word commonly applied to critical thinkers about technology. The "Luddite" is the intelligent and reflective person who is cautious and concerned with a technology because she understands its power and consequences. Others simply go along, exhibiting trust without thought, attention or verification. The "Luddite" is invariably the more technologically intellectual of the two.
Pejorative use of the word Luddite is frequently made to imply dissent from some "widely accepted norm". There is none. For a glimpse of why communications security is not a solved problem with any "best practice", this paper on secure messages should convince you that there are dozens of trade-offs each satisfying individual needs, personalities, circumstances and trust models. What applies to communications is typical of all other areas of computer technology. All companies want you to believe that their system alone is the proper one and that you'd be crazy to disagree or exercise another choice.
Only a "Luddite" would think that 'Secure' Boot is a joke, a lie, and a fraud. █
