*** Microsoft Windows 11 Thoughts & Discussion Thread ***

mrk said:
Hmm the way things are shifting I can't see it being so invasive years down the line.
Click to expand...
It's not so much about how invasive it is, if it was invasive there'd probably be a lot more resistance to it.

Don't get me wrong as like snowdog said it has its place in things like mobile devices but for devices that can be physically secured behind locked doors and private networks it has no place, giving away the power of what software you're allowed to run to X company and making it so there's no way to avoid being tracked on the internet is asking for trouble down the road.
 
Murphy said:
It's not so much about how invasive it is, if it was invasive there'd probably be a lot more resistance to it.

Don't get me wrong as like snowdog said it has its place in things like mobile devices but for devices that can be physically secured behind locked doors and private networks it has no place, giving away the power of what software you're allowed to run to X company and making it so there's no way to avoid being tracked on the internet is asking for trouble down the road.
Click to expand...

Yeah it is a slow boil thing - the first attempt to bring in such wholesale hit a ton of resistance so now they are doing it more gradually. Nothing good comes of it - even where its implementation is innocent and justifiable there is the problems of scope creep and abuse of the power it gives with eventually 3rd parties able to say exactly how you can and can't use your own system.
 
Last edited:
Secure boot and TPM are just the start, MS want to integrate its Pluton chip (think all Xbox’s have them) into all PC's and turn them into an IOS style walled garden that they control. Think AM5 already has some of it as it was mentioned on stage in the live stream.
 
Donnie Fisher said:
A quick google seems to suggest that this pluton chip stuff will become a require within windows going forward.

I dont mind the idea of making sure the OS is secure from unwanted sources, but I’m not in favour of it being used to lock down the use of the PC For the user itself.
Click to expand...
This is not about security, it’s about DRM. In a few years, PC’s that don’t have this will be blocked from using services that use it for DRM and tracking. The PC is the best platform because its an open platform that allow the user to choose what they use it for, the pluton chip goes against this and turns the PC into a MS Pad! MS will block any software/site from installing/been used if they don’t know or like it. Governments will get MS to block/remove software/sites and there is nothing the user can do, probably will not even be informed at all.
 
I guess that depends what it actually does. Is it the OS telling it to block stuff? If so I can't imagine Linux being particularly affected as its whole ethos is more "this is yours to do what you want with and if you don't like what it's doing, change it".
 
OspreyO said:
Sounds like it on the chip though. So will effect all OS no?
Click to expand...
TPM already does if it's enabled. My Linux knowledge isn't great but AFAIK Linux distros, at least for the kernel, have to apply/get certificates so TPM doesn't prevent it from running. It's currently all good as you can enable/disable TPM in the BIOS so you can bypass that if you want to load your own kernel/boot loader, however i don't think it stretches the imagination too much to envision some point in the future, perhaps only on limited devises to start with, where there's no longer an option to enable/disable TPM in the BIOS.

Then maybe, stretching the imagination a little further, there comes a point where the certificate issuing authority considers certain kernels/boot loaders to be insecure so simply refuses to issue a certificate. Before anyone says it, yes that's a dystopian possible future and may never come to pass however i personally would prefer if it simply wasn't possible at all. The only way anyone can say with 100% certainty that such a dystopian possible future isn't going to come to pass is to not create the conditions for it in the first place.
 
Murphy said:
TPM already does if it's enabled. My Linux knowledge isn't great but AFAIK Linux distros, at least for the kernel, have to apply/get certificates so TPM doesn't prevent it from running. It's currently all good as you can enable/disable TPM in the BIOS so you can bypass that if you want to load your own kernel/boot loader, however i don't think it stretches the imagination too much to envision some point in the future, perhaps only on limited devises to start with, where there's no longer an option to enable/disable TPM in the BIOS.

Then maybe, stretching the imagination a little further, there comes a point where the certificate issuing authority considers certain kernels/boot loaders to be insecure so simply refuses to issue a certificate. Before anyone says it, yes that's a dystopian possible future and may never come to pass however i personally would prefer if it simply wasn't possible at all. The only way anyone can say with 100% certainty that such a dystopian possible future isn't going to come to pass is to not create the conditions for it in the first place.
Click to expand...

When I saw this thread I went looking and it seemed that some Linux distro's wouldn't run with it at least not yet. Support will come in time probably. Some mention of disabling it in the motherboard bios to allow Linux to run. Guess its early days.

I don't run Linux. Other than when I rage quit windows from time to time.
 
OspreyO said:
When I saw this thread I went looking and it seemed that some Linux distro's wouldn't run with it at least not yet. Support will come in time probably. Some mention of disabling it in the motherboard bios to allow Linux to run. Guess its early days.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't exactly say it's early days, when it was truly the early days there was a lot of consternation about Linux distro's getting certificates and to their credit the issuing authority has been good in terms of issuance and time so, from what i gather, there's very little of the problems people foresaw.

The problem is that, IMO, it may not always be good, that you're placing the power of what software to run and your trust in the hands of a third party. (And like i said there may come a time when you can't disable it in the BIOS).
 
Last edited:
Infidelus said:
I guess that depends what it actually does. Is it the OS telling it to block stuff? If so I can't imagine Linux being particularly affected as its whole ethos is more "this is yours to do what you want with and if you don't like what it's doing, change it".
Click to expand...

One way Linux could be affected is if we have a scenario where it becomes possible to require trusted hardware to be able to do anything online, or what you can do online without trusted hardware becomes more and more restricted. This can't happen right now because there is such a range of hardware without any kind of TPM or similar system but once the feature support becomes widespread it becomes much easier to turn that on.

At which point Linux would be forced to adopt support, involving a certain amount of closed source and certification, or face a situation where you can't use the OS for much if anything online.

All pushed through with lots of "wont' someone think of the children" and hand wringing about protection against malware, etc. etc.

It is a wet dream for big industry, governments, some businesses and software developers, etc. who have an authoritarian mindset, etc. so there will be a push towards it.

EDIT: One way I can see that utilised would be to prevent people using ad blockers :s
 
Last edited:
Not being able to remove or at least tame Edge is one of the big reasons I'm reluctant to upgrade my main system to 11, with 10 edge can be removed with a simple command but they've removed that in 11.

I get it, they want to repeat the mistakes of the past and integrate the code responsible for parsing HTML into Windows so it can natively handle that but do they really need to install an entire browser, all +1GB of it, just to do that. Then there's all the extra tasks and services it sets up so it can update itself because apparently they can't integrate them into Windows update.
 
Last edited:
Murphy said:
I get it, they want to repeat the mistakes of the past and integrate the code responsible for parsing HTML into Windows so it can natively handle that but they do they really need to install an entire browser, all +1GB of it, just to do that. Then there's all the extra tasks and services it sets up so it can update itself because apparently they can't integrate them into Windows update.
Click to expand...

Nah it's Microsoft they don't care.
 
Edge is still needed for some sites. I've used some financial sites that only seem to work with Edge as well as work perks sites for cashback, so it's needed to be installed due to poor web development from those sites sadly. I just have it toned down as per above.
 
Video streaming DRM on some sites only works or only works with all features on Edge - IIRC Disney Plus still reduces the already pitiful bitrate on PC if you don't use Edge...

Still not a reason for MS to not give people the options to remove it, etc. etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom