It can be a bit of both.
I don’t think secureboot is an attack on freedom exactly (and it’s certainly not an instance of EEE), but I definitely think it shouldn’t be Microsoft holding the keys.
Comment on TrueNAS build system going closed source
tabular@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Are they lying about secure boot being a reason or can I go back to thinking SB is part of Microsoft’s EEE attack on Linux?
frongt@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
hoshikarakitaridia@lemmy.world 23 hours ago
Literally today Chris Titus released a video where he emphasized that no one should be using secure boot because the default backend is Microsoft and no one changes their secure boot config.
If that’s true there’s an argument that the name “secure boot” is hardly detachable from the defaults and thus that name is kid of burnt and shouldn’t be recommended out of an abundance of caution for new users.
Saerana@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 hours ago
Do you know the name of this video? I keep trying to search for a secure boot video by Chris Titus released today/yesterday but I’m not finding anything.
d3lta19@lemmy.ca 10 hours ago
It was in his reaction video to LTT trying it Linux again
deafboy@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
So… nobody changes the default settings, therefore everyone should change the default settings… to the wrong option?
Andres4NY@social.ridetrans.it 1 day ago
@tabular @Ek-Hou-Van-Braai They are lying. Debian supports Secure Boot and remains open.