Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 21st Sep 2011 22:06 UTC, submitted by kragil
Thread beginning with comment 490316
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Icaria,
"Also, I hate this attitude of 'it'll be hacked anyway'."
Forcing manufacturers to include anti-features is wrong whether or not it's hackable.
"even if cracked, could prove enough to just about kill enthusiast computing."
And this is really where I have a problem with it. Instead of making computers more open and accessible for everyone, this secure boot severely discourages independent development and innovation.
* I'm running with the assumption that Matthew Garret is correct that owners will not be in possession of their own keys.




Member since:
2010-06-19
Could someone in the know explain the 'Windows Logo Programme'? It's in my limited understanding that signed bootloaders is a prerequisite for showing the 'Windows compatible' logo, not a prerequisite for getting an OEM licence to put Windows on your products.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
Also, I hate this attitude of 'it'll be hacked anyway'. It took years for the current crop of consoles to be reliably compromised (not counting Wii) , there's plenty of phones that still haven't been cracked, even after years on the market and there's plenty of DRM'd media that hasn't been cracked. It's not a sure thing, not even close and the extra barriers to entry this presents, even if cracked, could prove enough to just about kill enthusiast computing.