this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2025
410 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
70995 readers
3675 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The world would be a better place if locked bootloaders were not a thing. I agree that there needs to be laws in place to prevent the sale of these devices.
Locked in the technical sense of being able to verify the operating system isn't a bad thing. The problem is when the device owner can't add signing keys of their choice.
The latter is what GrapheneOS does.
Something that worries me about that is attestation. This is the advice from the GrapheneOS Devs:
https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-guide
They're asking app developers to trust their keys specifically, which would mean that the app might work on GrapheneOS, but not my fork of GrapheneOS with some cherry picked fix I want.
It would be much better if we stamped this out now, before all online services require attestation.
Agreed. Microsoft proposed something along those lines under the name "Palladium" a couple decades ago and was widely criticized, even in the mainstream press. Apple and Google doing the same thing to our phones barely got a whimper.
I don’t have a problem with boot loaders doing cryptographic checks in general, as long as the ultimate decision lies with the device owner.
Imagine a PC with a locked bootloader.
Imagine having to purchase a new PC to simply be able to get updates. Or be locked to windows for life and not have an option to install Linux, BSD, whatever else.
There is zero reason to restrict installing a new os or firmware on a phone except planned obsolescence
Imagine buying a PC but only be able to install anything from one app store made by the manufacturer
How do you feel about locked bootloader's on game consoles?
I figure this is one of those edge cases people might fall on either side of. But consoles are also a really large segment of the tech market, so it's worth thinking about.
The PS3 used to have an unlocked bootloader with official Linux support. Sony removed it because of piracy. Of course, piracy is still possible, but as always, it's only an excuse to exert more control over customers.
That's pretty cool though, I'm glad they at least experimented with it. I wonder if they just chickened out at some point or if they actually found a steep increase in piracy?
Well I don't think I really believe that. Certainly, I don't think gamers care less about technical freedom than other groups, say for example users of iOS devices, or smart TVs, or routers, or car entertainment systems. Most of those are pretty locked down, but I don't think a lack of caring on the user's part has much to do with that.
I do think you're absolutely right about that. A console is supposed to be plug and play. You plug in a controller, and you can play your games. You shouldn't have to worry about drivers, software updates, system specs, whatever; the games just work.
(Admittedly, this has been shifting lately, with constant software updates and different editions of the same console. But I think the point still essentially holds true.)
But yeah, once you start opening up the platform, making it easy to tinker with, suddenly total compatibility can be harder to guarantee, much like it is with Android.