Almost a Week Later Microsoft Openly Admits the Sabotage of GNU/Linux PCs Was Its Own Fault

Just how many distros have enabled this 'Secure Boot' and why would they do this? Money? Just taking Microsoft's word that it would somehow be safer? I'm missing something I know it. How does Microsoft now have control of the boot process that does not have anything to do with them? And isn't owned by them either..

Trust, or lack of it. Do you trust MickeyShaft, even when Windows is not running?

Or do you regret the work needed patch Windows, just to make Linux run again? Since when does a Linux kernel need to install a Windows patch to boot?

After all these years, and Micro$h!t still can't be trusted. Even with 3 CEO's, none have learned product safety.

I thought that GRUB was outside of Microsoft's control? That they had no control over what it could or could not do. There is still something I am not understanding..

Dear Scott,

The explanation is both simple and sad. It's simple because anyone can understand the logic of it, but at the same time it's immensely unjust. Very, very unjust.

By "partnering up" with Linux vendors for "cloud" (like Novell in 2006 for "interop"), Microsoft made them more dependent on the Microsoft palm (of cash flow).

This has gotten so bad that IBM/Red Hat went out of its way to scare users who do not enable "secure" boot [1] and its former staff is now suing both my wife and I after he had harassed us for 12+ years (it's us who should have sued him, but it's expensive and the goal is to grind us down like he had already done Linus Torvalds, RMS, Ted Tso, and Bruce Perens).

In short, you get a lot of hassle for obstructing this fake "security" agenda (wherein security just means outsourcing both control and trust over your computing devices).

____

[1] https://techrights.org/o/2022/07/29/richard-hughes-secure-bo...