Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 4th Feb 2013 22:10 UTC
"People are, unsurprisingly, upset that Microsoft have imposed UEFI Secure Boot on the x86 market. A situation in which one company gets to determine which software will boot on systems by default is obviously open to abuse. What's more surprising is that many of the people who are upset about this are completely fine with encouraging people to buy Chromebooks. Out of the box, Chromebooks are even more locked down than Windows 8 machines." Good point.
Thread beginning with comment 551442
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: One little difference
by Morgan on Tue 5th Feb 2013 01:17
in reply to "RE[2]: One little difference"
Member since:2005-06-29
It comes down to local security versus freedom of choice. If you want to choose to install your own OS, you must disable the security features of the firmware that prevent modified and/or unsigned kernels from being installed locally. You gain control over the hardware but lose the first line of defense. At that point it's up to you to harden your system, and if local security isn't a priority then you are left with a device not much different from previous generation x86 laptops.
Edit: deleted that flawed house analogy after re-reading it. Sorry.
Edited 2013-02-05 01:19 UTC
Member since:
2006-01-14
So you didn't read the article. "
Actually he has a good point, depending on how you define security. I don't consider a Microsoft tablet with RT secure as Microsoft is likely watching what you do. The same with the Chromebook with its native OS. I don't care how impossible it is to bypass Microsoft's security protocols since I don't trust Microsoft to start with. I do trust open software that anyone can vet for privacy breaches. And the Chromebook with dev mode lets me set up a device I can actually trust.