zlacker

>>foodst+(OP)
The fearmongering about Pluton feels very similar to the criticism that was levied against UEFI Secure Boot when it was being debuted. In the end, x86 systems didn't become any more locked down.

I predict that this will blow over, and won't be a big deal in a few years time once FOSS drivers for what is effectively just a new breed of TPM are released.

If in five years, it turns out I was wrong, I'll eat my hat. Although defining "my hat" by then might be difficult, as it'll probably be subscription based.

>>messe+sa
> In the end, x86 systems didn't become any more locked down.

I realize it was only introduced as of ~2012 and it's been 10 years, but I'm not sure we can draw a conclusion on this one just yet. Windows 11 took a huge leap in that direction so for all I know it might take another decade; it certainly doesn't look like they've given up on the idea of locking down the desktop just yet.

>>datafl+9f
They attempted to lock down the boot process with 32-bit ARM, but backtracked with 64-bit ARM. If the intention was to keep eventually lock it down, why backtrack and open it back up? It's not as if Linux on ARM was a major selling point for their ARM devices.

>>messe+Gf
I actually don't have knowledge of that. Do you know what the reason for the backtracking was?

>>datafl+Tf
To be quite honest, I'd be interested myself to find out. I can't see the motivation for changing it, other than they found it not to be beneficial. It seems like opening it up again would just create more problems in the long run if they intended to close it down eventually.

I might look into it, as it sounds like an interesting rabbit hole.