Comment on Anon gives a piracy history lesson
quixotic120@lemmy.world 1 day agoThis is true but is only applicable as long as manufacturers still allow alternative OS to exist. It sounds crazy now but the idea of not being able to use an alternative is something that manufacturers are clearly toying with (see the x elite laptops with locked boot loaders, hp secureboot, etc).
They’ve seen the control they can exert over users with mobile devices and they want that across the spectrum. Then it goes back to a point I made in another comment; Linux/foss users can and will still exist but they will be restricted to ancient hardware that prevents them from working on certain tasks. This already occurs: look at a true foss idealist that will only use hardware that can run coreboot/libreboot. You’re generally running hardware well over a decade old at this point. If you want to work on any computationally complex task (ml models, high poly 3d modeling, anything requiring a modern discrete gpu really), you’re out of luck unless you compromise your ideals
The thing is Linux users and other power users think “if manufacturers lock the bootloader there will be a huge outcry and people won’t buy it”. And there is truth to that, there will be a lot of noise online. But most users won’t care and they’ll still buy the stuff. And apple/google/hp/lenovo/etc will push/pay their buddies at facebook/reddit/etc to downplay the discussion/outrage so it will blow over quick and become a normal thing. Then all it takes is a new dmca extension or modification and now overriding a manufacturer lock on a bootloader is an illegal modification
djsoren19@yiffit.net 1 day ago
Right but you can still build your own PC. I already don’t bother with a laptop or any of that other garbage because they are just worthless tech garbage. Sure, the new MacBook/Chromebook/etc will be locked down, but they’re already a bitch to get a different OS running on so I’d argue we’re already there.
Essentially what would be required is DRM from Intel or AMD on their CPUs to prevent you from ultimately installing whatever you want, and I don’t think that fits their business model. I think they just want to make a bunch of money selling overpriced silicone, and don’t need control of the platform. Sure, your software will be a few steps behind the cutting edge corpo stuff, but you make it sound like people will be trapped on their 2010 Thinkpad. You can still have a high powered computer, you just have to be part of a different ecosystem.
quixotic120@lemmy.world 1 day ago
“Intel Boot Guard is an ME application introduced in Q2 2013 with ME firmware version 9.0 on 4th Generation Intel Core i3/i5/i7 (Haswell) CPUs. It allows a PC OEM to generate an asymmetric cryptographic keypair, install the public key in the CPU, and prevent the CPU from executing boot firmware that isn’t signed with their private key. This means that coreboot and libreboot are impossible to port to such PCs, without the OEM’s private signing key. Note that systems assembled from separately purchased mainboard and CPU parts are unaffected, since the vendor of the mainboard (on which the boot firmware is stored) can’t possibly affect the public key stored on the CPU.”
From libreboot faq. There is precedent for this and it just hasn’t been heavily exercised, yet
Unless you build the hardware you cannot prevent this from happening. It’s merely a question of how long until 99% of tech devices are basically iphones and you need a very restrictive “developers license” to buy the (likely extremely expensive) 1% that are not that puts legal repercussions on you if you do anything that they do not like