Difficult to Win Arguments When the Simple Facts Are Not on One's Side
The reason we've long won arguments over "Secure Boot" (every year since 2012) is that newer evidence emerges all the time, always vindicating us and proving points we made, or predictions we said would come true. Last year Microsoft sabotaged dual-boot setups and a year earlier we learned that some new laptops were boot-locked in such a way that only Windows would ever boot on them (not because Linux was technically incapable; this was deliberate sabotage). This wasn't so hard a prediction to make, more so by people familiar with Microsoft's past and with strong knowledge of computer science (including how computers work). That "Secure Boot" would open up infinite security holes was also predictable.
Starting arguments over things when you know the facts (unlike money!) aren't on your side is a dumb move that can only ever result in severe loss of credibility. Stick to the science, stick to facts, stop “deep-throat[ing] Microsoft". █
