zlacker

>>gjsman+(OP)
Remote attestation or not, "Software freedom" fighters should understand that things happen based on some user base need. Somebody needed this and they added it, whoever needs it doesn't care if they can't run linux on it. If the user cares about running anything else on the hardware, they will add a way to disable the feature. it is all about the user need.

if you are a secondary priority user on some hardware, the way to fix it is to focus on becoming important enough to be prioritized instead of fearing some technology will limit things.

>>robot+ig
Somebody wanted this, but it might not be a user, and it might not fill any user need whatsoever. If I am the primary user of the hardware, my wants take precedence over anyone else, including the manufacturer and the software vendors.

>>MereIn+Wg
agreed, your wants take precedence. If there are enough buyers like you who care about hardware freedom they'll drop this feature.

>>robot+3i
I was not making a market-based argument, as the preferences of other buyers is irrelevant. That Having purchased the hardware, that I wish to run software is the only justification required.

This is not something that is amenable to market-based solutions, as the market contains bad actors pushing for infringement of my ability to run software.