GAFAM "doesn't depend on any sort of lock-in, humans just don't want to be free anymore," according to MinceR
"And the PC vendors are always technically the ones that do it because they're a liability condom for Microsoft." -Ryan, hours ago
There have been more 'faces' in IRC lately and this past evening there was a topic being raised which concerns how Microsoft obstructs GNU/Linux adoption.
The "only thing that could possibly keep proprietary software "somewhat honest" is the ability to run a Free alternative to that program," one person said, "and the prerequisite for that would open standards for formats and protocols," said another.
Ryan sort of coined a term by speaking of "a liability condom for Microsoft" and he gave the example of UEFI trouble (restricted boot), which monopolists nowadays try to rebrand as "BIOS".
Another person adopted this notion of "liability condom", "which is why Microsoft fights both open formats and open standards to this day, especially via proxies," he said. And "this "restricted boot" problem is just another proxy fight".
Only yesterday we mentioned Windows TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) in relation to attacks on Europe. Someone in IRC spoke "of exit barrier that is proprietary lock-in" and another asked us to link to EU-centric posts counting exit costs as part of the TCO.
At the moment Europe (not just EU member states) recognises that it must explore ways to fully and truly control its computer systems. GAFAM fronts for an enemy of Europe; it is not hard to see that.
Years ago Germany spoke against UEFI restricted boot, correctly identifying it as a national security risk.
"Secure Boot is getting worse all the time with the ultimate goal of preventing Free Software from running at all," Ryan explains.
"I've had to take action over various PC vendors because of things somewhat related to this but not *exactly* this because last time I bought a PC you just turned Secure Boot off and never had to deal with it or the bugs or malfunctions in it again. And the PC vendors are always technically the ones that do it because they're a liability condom for Microsoft. It's like The Godfather relaying the hit orders through the chain of command down to someone who goes to prison if they screw up the hit. And if they talk about who ordered the hit, they get killed in prison, so they shut up and do their prison time. It's somewhat like that. So it's always like HP, Dell, Lenovo, those companies are there to implement it and they usually make it look like an accident, like they had a legitimate purpose for why only Windows works. But the "legitimate purpose" is so insane you'd never do it like that for a good reason. Like the "fake RAID" mode so you'd need a Windows driver to see the SSD in my laptop."
MinceR said that "people don't seem to value free alternatives anymore" and in response somebody said, "look at no further than http://techrights.org/wiki/High-Priority_Opponents/" (an old page that I wrote when I was planning to quit my job to focus on this site).
As many readers are aware, our criticism of UEFI (restricted boot in particular) attracted a lot of online harassment against us, including stalking and libel. Apparently our arguments (technical arguments) were too strong, so boosters of restricted boot decided to go ad hominem. █