The H Year: 2012's Wins, Fails and Mehs [LWN.net]

The H Year: 2012's Wins, Fails and Mehs

Posted Jan 1, 2013 6:21 UTC (Tue) by gmaxwell (subscriber, #30048)
Parent article: The H Year: 2012's Wins, Fails and Mehs

It's kinda sad that we have a name for the negative behavior ('Restricted Boot') but no real name for the use of secureboot in ways which which are purely user positive.

'BootFreedom' perhaps, but that sounds like a even broader thing than not being RestrictedBoot.

This lack is unfortunate because along with encouraging makers to not restrict their users we should encourage them to market the fact that they don't— so that not restricting users becomes something manufactures compete on.

(Log in to post comments)

The H Year: 2012's Wins, Fails and Mehs

Posted Jan 1, 2013 8:34 UTC (Tue) by gmaxwell (subscriber, #30048) [Link]

Good essay, though perhaps "user" has some of the problems we have when taking about "content" (e.g. art, music, movies) and "consumers" of it in that it automatically places the thing we're talking about in a narrow box. Someone who practices the freedom to change software is surely a developer— in the language of people-in-boxes— not a user. Why care about user's freedom to do something they don't do by definition?

I guess that talking about 'freedom' without great care runs into the problem that suggesting to someone that they are being oppressed is a quite uphill battle: (imagine a Monty python sketch) "See here! you're being oppressed!" "Uh. No I'm not" "Yes you are!" "If _I_ were being oppressed you can be sure I'd already know it!" "No sir, you can only be free if you stand on one leg!" "One leg you say? Well that doesn't sound free at all! It sounds bloody inconvenient!" "maybe a little, but if you use both then you have to buy two shoes!" "but everyone buys two shoes!" "now you see how insidious the oppression is!" […]

I wonder if more effective when we talk about abstract freedom in terms of what _other people_ should have a right to while the _personal_ discussion should center more on the concrete things they can and can't do ('Can you change the OS on your computer?', 'can a third party evaluate this system for spyware?'). Though maybe I'm falling into the trap of 'open source'— but I don't think so, I suggest this not because of any discomfort in talking about freedom, but rather because people just seem unwilling to believe they don't have it ("I'm quite free, I can facetime with any Apple approved device I want!") but more willing to believe that other people are being deprived it.

On further contemplation I wonder if my suggestion that there be a name for secureboot-freedom-as-a-feature isn't actually a bad one. The line between a restriction and a missing functionality can be blurry to people: Many people seem unaware of restrictions on their ebook devices because without an obvious copy button that tells them "no" the inability to copy just seems like one of an infinite number of benignly non-implemented features. Promoting freedom as a feature runs the risk of making non-freedom sound like a regrettable but perhaps forgivable omission rather than a hostile act of control.

The H Year: 2012's Wins, Fails and Mehs

Posted Jan 1, 2013 13:01 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

I think all these talks are look so crazy to Joe Average because they miss the mark and use exaggerative hyperbole. Guys, please. Can we stop with this "your freedom" nonsense? This is not problem of freedom (nobody holds the gun and forces you to buy the Microsoft Surface, right?), but it's still a problem of deception.

People are "buying" things and they often feel they own them after said fact, but in reality they are mere renters if something like undisableable Secure Boot is used: real owner (Microsoft if that's the only entity who can sign the keys) can remotely disable the device at any point.

This distinction was already discussed and I think it's better to drop this "slavery" analogue as totally flawed. If we'll start talking about "devices which are sold to you but which you don't really own" then people will understand you much better: most Joe Averages already had some experience when they wanted to have something and were unable to have it because real owner refused to cooperate (be it desktop-style applications on Microsoft Surface or Google Voice on an iPhone) and they understand how the devices they supposedly "own" sometimes restrict them because real owner wants to do that.