The fact that you could go back do DOS isn't relevant to the definition of what is an operating system and what isn't. You could go back to DOS in Win9x, too. And you can shut down the OS and go back to the boot loader shell in many computer architectures, including the earlier models of IBM PC where you could go back to ROM BASIC.
Also consider the following example. What does this do?
c = a * b;
Is it a vector product? Is it a scalar product? Is it a scalar multiplication? I need to look at the types of a, b and c to figure out. A method name in place of a single character could tell me more.
Type erasure, on the other hand, is pure evil - to me, it's the representation of what happens when a pragmatic language ends up into the hands of computer scientists.
By the way, in Java all lists have the get() method with no exceptions (this includes Lists, HashMaps, Vectors) and all collections have the iterator() method with no exceptions. The At() method doesn't exist.
Besides, what if I’m using TLS? Are they going to require me to install rogue certificates just to make their inspection more comfortable? No thanks. Telecom companies had better learn already that with the advent of the Internet, their trade is to sell dumb pipes, competing with the others over the price of that service; the good times when they could milk their customers for “value added services” is over.
- internet meme repeater ("year of Linux on the desktop", "stallman eats his own toes", "thou shalt not compare to nazi");
- xkcd repeater (its output is prefixed by the string "obligatory" and displays a strong prevalence of this one);
- project deprecator ("this software is so stupid, I could write a better one with one arm tied behind my back, except I'm too smart to actually do it");
- Google/Apple/Microsoft PR ("it's not Google who kills kittens! It's their subcontractors!");
and, last but not least,
- Slashdot deprecator ("slashdot is no longer a nice site to read these days").
Because they have TRADE SECRETS to protect.
No. They don't want to protect the binary blobs from your eyes. They're not encrypting, they're signing. They want to prevent you from developing your own blob, by having your video card reject firmware not written by them.
I don't think they are anti-open source,
It's not a matter of opinion. They are anti-open source by definition, it's a fact dictated by their actions. They're locking down the cards that they manufacture in order to prevent their owners from writing open-source software to drive them. You can't get more anti-open source than this. Nvidia have always been anti-open source, and they are getting worse and worse with time.
Wrong. It does prevent the kinds of malware and rootkits that operate by modifying the bootloader.
1) Whatever it does, it can be nullified by malware that gains root-level access AFTER the OS has booted (which is the norm). And if the malware managed to modify the bootloader, of course it has already gained that access, hence no effective protection is added, UNLESS you are running a machine that doesn't allow unsigned software to run (EXEs, batch scripts, stuff written by the user) that could have been installed or patched by the malware. But clearly this is not Windows as we know it today.
Moreover, locking down the machine (this is the only firmware behaviour authorized by Microsoft when the so-called Secure Boot restriction is violated) is arguably the worst outcome for desktop users, as they will be left with no way to service the machine (beyond running "rescue partitions" which of course are static and therefore can't contain anti-malware software), and with no access to their data.
2) Malware that operates by modifying the boot sequence is extremely rare today, because it must target specific hardware, and is associated with government-sponsored attacks. Of course, three-letter agencies are only a piece of paper away from having their malware signed with legitimate keys.
and harmful thing
Cite specifically the "harm".
Read the thread. I'm no parrot.
Well, now it's no longer true, as widely expected by the hysterical idiots.
And being hysterical idiots you and the rest of them still haven't figured out that in fact it is still true, in fact unless some OEM makes the choice to not include the ability to turn it off it will remain true.
"Unless" is they key word here.
Describe exactly how the OEM being responsible for their product is "anti-competitive, anti-consumer and anti-free software behaviour", because that does not make any sense in any context whatsoever.
Imagine that I am an operating system vendor and I want to sell an OS. Describe exactly what I have to tell my customers before I sell them my OS.
Imagine that I know an unskilled person (grandma) running an old version of Windows that is no longer supported on an otherwise perfectly fine machine. Describe exactly what I have to tell her before I propose to install Linux, or a commercial OS costing less than the new version of Windows, on her PC.
Imagine that I am a student and I've heard about this Linux thing. I'd like to try it on my PC that I bought off a shelf a couple years ago. Describe exactly what I should do to try Linux on my machine, fix it when it doesn't work and add new features to its kernel.
Absolute, 100% rubbish! Show me an OEM that does not provide the ability to turn secure boot off.
I don't know if you're the same Microsoft supporter as before, but in case you aren't, I'll repeat that we are talking about "designed for Windows 10" machines which aren't for sale yet.
Impossible, no machine could ever be sold without the capability to boot from an external device, as this would prevent installing Microsoft Windows on it.
Wrong again, they can easily install it and then lock you out of the BIOS.
No, because that would prevent the user from buying copies of future versions of Microsoft Windows.
Bullshit. The OEMs should be held accountable if they make the choice to produce a product that doesn't allow secureboot to be turned off. Why are you so desperate to defend the OEMs as some blameless, unaccountable entity?
Because the OEMs are known not to care about letting the users fiddle with advanced boot options. They are also known to make firmware that, for example, will crash the machine from SMM when running a non-Windows OS: I've owned such PCs (that bug was meant to be a fix to make Windows 2000 run on that hardware). If the machines they make don't boot Linux, it's because they don't care, or haven't the resources to support Linux, not because of malice. But it's Microsoft who put these hurdles for them (and the users) to overcome. It's their decision that will lock people out of their own PCs, not the disinterest of the OEMs, which has always been there and is not changing.
Do you also blame Google for not forcing everybody who makes Android devices to provide an unlocked bootloader and root-level access on phones?
Yes of course. That's where I usually lose most of my karma points.
can you give a non-malicious explanation about why the requirement of being able to disable the so-called Secure Boot is being lifted now?
Less overhead in the certification process perhaps
You've just admitted that there's "overhead" in the overall process of the OEM to add an option that disables the so-called Secure Boot. Hence, OEMs that want to get rid of this "overhead" WILL remove the option. Thanks for proving my point.
but likely pushed by the OEMs as a way to try and sell both their Windows and Linux offerings separately rather than just one and have the user dual-boot it.
That is, to keep Linux out of of the users' PC as I've been stating from the beginning!
If MS wanted to stop Linux they would be offering huge discounts to OEMs to not ship Linux (and Android) devices and to only ship Windows.
My friend, in this world pressures against OEMs are the norm, not an exception.
In recent years despite Linux on the desktop being offered pre-installed from big box retailers, available in the form of ChromeOS, available pre-installed systems from Dell, HP, Lenovo and others, free of charge, easy to install and even with the ability to try *without* installing the desktop PC userbase has *still* rejected it, it hasnt made any gains at all.
I'm not denying that Linux users are a minority. I'm stating that they risk to become zero thanks to these dirty tricks. And this will harm the market of Linux on the servers, too, because of the way how people become Linux contributors. And I'm stating this in a comment which, if you bother to read, was meant as a response to someone who said "Microsoft supports Linux now".
If they really wanted to lock out alternative operating systems they would have done it decades ago when they actually saw Linux on the desktop as a threat.
They have been doing stuff like this endlessly for decades. Remember Bill Gates' "we should make ACPI Windows-only" in the 90s?