The real deal y0

  • 1 Post
  • 160 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 16th, 2023

help-circle




  • A yes, the fun times of a baby haha. Enjoy! :p
    Anyway, Secure boot itself was designed by the eufi consortium, which is a group of pc tech companies, to help make sure devices only boot what it can trust. Good on paper and in practice but…

    back in circa 2011 microsoft had enforced any pc that wanted to be windows 8 certified ( and get the sticker ) to require secure boot to be enabled together with fastboot. All motherboards needed to have a tpm module with only the microsoft certificate in it. This meant that booting from a usb or cd was completely off the table and you could just not install linux, period.
    And even if you did, the kernels or bootloaders were not signed so they would be refused by the bios/eufi.

    This was a big thing back then, and canonical and redhat tried and found a few ways around it, and so did some individuals.

    But afaik the linux foundation ( which microsoft is part of, funnily enough ) made some binaries that were signed and allowed linux to boot under secure boot, including usb/cd.
    Iirc, during the linux installation the distro will add its certificate to the tpm so that kernels signed by the distro boot fine.

    To this day, without those binaries from the foundation, it would be impossible to boot linux with secure boot and can still cause issues when dual booting and having bitlocker enabled for example. Bitlocker detects a changed boot state (by grub) and says fuck that, give me the recovery key or i aint decrypting this.

    Here is a google search if you want dig deeper, it should all be from circa 2011-2012 :
    https://www.google.com/?q=windows+8+oem+to+disable+linux







  • Except all problems of a windows system werent on win7. Bloat? Minimal, was mostly the theme that was heavy but could be disabled. Forced updates? Didnt exist yet. Hardware requirements? A running pc. Half assed new ui? Didnt exist yet. Confusing configs that were all over the place? Nope, started in win8 and 10. Software comparability? 90% hell yes.

    Win7 was a polished vista, with loads of bloat removed, performance improvements and 1000% more stable.
    Win8 started screwing with shit and moving stuff partly and it went downhill from there.

    And im also comparing it to os’ of the time. Clearly with todays tech id pick a linux over win7 anyday, but in those days win7 was king









  • Even today i find it important as the knowledge of how things work is vanishing and many just accept it works. But how will we build upon an idea if everyone forgets how it works?
    There is also the idea within software that layers of bodgework upon one another creates overcomplex and unstable software. Thats everything but software you want to ship.
    I understand you dont want all hobby work to reach professional levels, specially if youre trying something new! Thats ok!

    Its just once you reach a certain level things have to change to make it not suck, dont build on that :')
    Also one of the reasons i dont like retroarch.
    But i will accept they fill a need that is very much wanted and needed by people and there isnt really anything like it