Originally Posted by Skara Brae
(Alright, I am exaggerating.)
(A tiny little bit.)
This is precisely how I feel about the future (of freedom). We are, after all, talking about corporations here, whose only goal is to make as much profits as possible. I am convinced they would/will sacrifice our freedom in a nano-second, if it would bring them higher profits.
I fear that, some day in the future, I will be getting rid of my ("secure-boot-obliged", my quotation) computers (and of internet) and just go and do something else than "computing". Like reading a book (more books). Or riding my bike.
The implications of all these "security-based" developments give me goosebumps. If this is the future of the personal computer (be it desktop, tablets or cellphones), then I will no longer want computers.
Oh well, hey, it was/will have been fun for as long as it lasted.
I do not think we have seen the end of Microsoft yet.
The Linux/free software communities advocate a freedom that the general public is not interested in. More to the point, those communities have not made the case with the general public that it has a reason to be interested. I don't think they can.
People look at computers as appliances. They aren't interested in the ability of a developer to read source. They have no reason to read source code themselves so its availability means nothing to them. Windows has accustomed people to see the internet, with considerable justification, as a hostile and threatening place. That predisposes most users to accept anything tagged as "security" at face value and to assume that things like "Secure Boot" are part of the cost of using the net.
The overwhelming majority of people who use FOSS do so because they don't need to pay for it. If Windows didn't cost anything, many of them would still be using it.
Microsoft, I am sure, argues that Secure Boot cannot be opt-in because so many people wouldn't understand the implications of not opting in. Frankly, they are probably correct. But, while Microsoft has a legitimate interest in preventing the spread of boot-time malware from one Windows machine to the next, it has no legitimate interest in blocking the use of other operating systems.