this is exactly the problem, Microsoft is completely free to change this requirement at any time, also consider the fact they never mandated it previously, until there was a massive outcry.
Another problem is early indications are that disabling secure boot on many of these machines involves re-flashing the firmware entirely, with a ton of steps, and a lot of room for "buggy" behaviour
Compare something like CableCard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CableCARD, where before the FCC mandated that all receivers must use it, people with HD TIVOs would regularly go through dozens of cards because they stopped working randomly, a complete coincidence of course...
I think its atrocious that Microsoft has turned a supposedly open standard (UEFI) into a standard that gives them complete control of modern PCs.
Its easy to obscure the real issue with discussions about rootkits and security, but these infact have nothing to do with how the exact specifics of this particular technology are implemented, and the problems that result.
This a classic example of the syllogistic fallacy (we must do something -> this is something -> we must do this). These issues need to be separated.
The real question is, why should this obvious conflict of interest even be allowed to exist.
Another problem is early indications are that disabling secure boot on many of these machines involves re-flashing the firmware entirely, with a ton of steps, and a lot of room for "buggy" behaviour
Compare something like CableCard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CableCARD, where before the FCC mandated that all receivers must use it, people with HD TIVOs would regularly go through dozens of cards because they stopped working randomly, a complete coincidence of course...
I think its atrocious that Microsoft has turned a supposedly open standard (UEFI) into a standard that gives them complete control of modern PCs.
Its easy to obscure the real issue with discussions about rootkits and security, but these infact have nothing to do with how the exact specifics of this particular technology are implemented, and the problems that result.
This a classic example of the syllogistic fallacy (we must do something -> this is something -> we must do this). These issues need to be separated.
The real question is, why should this obvious conflict of interest even be allowed to exist.