Microsoft is fucking butthurt no one wants Windows 11 so they're stopping the sale of Windows 10 licenses this month

[Pissmaster]

You do realize that I was talking about The Ugly One, right?

@The Ugly One's last login was May 27th, and clearnet went down on May 5th. Everyone with a last login time of May 5th has been filtered by Tor, and that excludes @The Ugly One.

I'd say that the number of Linux users who cut their dicks off is smaller than the number of Windows users who had the pride flag shoved in their faces. But please tell me how that makes Windows a better operating system.

I slapped a single line into Powershell and took care of that problem

 

[Samuel Hyde]

So you don't think the guy who's probably demonstrated the most technical knowledge of anyone in this thread is capable of downloading a web browser?

Yeah, that makes perfect sense - shine on, you crazy faggot.

> the guy who's probably demonstrated the most technical knowledge of anyone in this thread
Lol, no. Really I shouldn't be surprised by this answer though. The technology board here is really for technology enthusiasts not for people who actually work in the field.

 

[Betonhaus]

> the guy who's probably demonstrated the most technical knowledge of anyone in this thread
Lol, no. Really I shouldn't be surprised by this answer though. The technology board here is really for technology enthusiasts not for people who actually work in the field.

The Ugly One posted very detailed explanations about how various processor subcomponents worked, with their capabilities and limitations. I seem to recall you being convinced that Microsoft on behalf of the CIA waved a magic wand to turn a data protection component into spyware, despite detailed analysis of it's function proving that impossible to do, proving that impossible to be undetectable to any half decent network admin monitoring traffic, proving that the component would function the same on Linux as it does Windows, and proving that making the component spyware would be moot as it would be much easier to do it in software.

 

[Samuel Hyde]

The Ugly One posted very detailed explanations about how various processor subcomponents worked, with their capabilities and limitations. I seem to recall you being convinced that Microsoft on behalf of the CIA waved a magic wand to turn a data protection component into spyware, despite detailed analysis of it's function proving that impossible to do, proving that impossible to be undetectable to any half decent network admin monitoring traffic, proving that the component would function the same on Linux as it does Windows, and proving that making the component spyware would be moot as it would be much easier to do it in software.

You going to need to be much more specific. Where did I say that?

 

[Betonhaus]

You going to need to be much more specific. Where did I say that?

there's no need for me to look up the exact details of that conversation my point still stands.

 

[Never Scored]

Jesus Christ, Samuel Hyde, please stop associating with me when I post in this thread.

 

[Yamamura]

So far I've been dual booting Linux Mint and Windows 10. I use Mint for computering and 10 for anything Mint cant handle (aka gaymen). This current setup seems to be running alright for me so far.

 

[Susanna]

>The Windows users who screeched about Linux being too complicated haven't posted since this site became a TOR message board
Unironically a skill issue

I'm primarily a mac user, but I'm still here. I think it's less a skill issue and more a Tor is shit issue. The site keeps breaking and I sometimes have to recreate my circuit half a dozen times before anything will load.

 

[Samuel Hyde]

there's no need for me to look up the exact details of that conversation my point still stands.

No, you need to give an example. Otherwise you don't have a point to make.

Jesus Christ, Samuel Hyde, please stop associating with me when I post in this thread.

No, I don't think I shall. IIRC you actually replied to me first in this thread.

I'm primarily a mac user, but I'm still here. I think it's less a skill issue and more a Tor is shit issue. The site keeps breaking and I sometimes have to recreate my circuit half a dozen times before anything will load.

Possibly but hmm never the less. The tone of the thread shifted significantly as soon as a small barrier was put in place.

 

[Pissmaster]

Possibly but hmm never the less. The tone of the thread shifted significantly as soon as a small barrier was put in place.

1. There's not really a whole lot more to say aside from even more repetitive shitflinging after we all determined that Windows is the best operating system of all time.
2. Everywhere on KF is slower due to Tor. It cuts the population of the forum down to about 1/4th of when it's on clearnet.

 

[Puff]

You do realize that I was talking about The Ugly One, right?

He doesn't

>So how many of you Linuxfags have trooned out since I last posted? Did that Linus Tech Tips fatty give you the courage to make the leap?
I'd say that the number of Linux users who cut their dicks off is smaller than the number of Windows users who had the pride flag shoved in their faces

know how

But please tell me how that makes Windows a better operating system.

to multiquote.
250 IQ Linux user, gentlemen.

RE: Fag flag, I never saw it because I already had that shit disabled.

 

[Barry McKockner]

My 8 year old desktop I built had an update downloaded. It says my system isn't compatible with Windows 11.

LOL suck it fags. I might just stay with my 4790k and DDR3 if it means I don't have to install your crap over my 10 pro.

 

[My beans are augmented]

in case any of you spasticated chimp niggers decided to install win11 (like myself) this can save your startmenu experience https://github.com/valinet/ExplorerPatcher/wiki

you dont have to pay for that stupid windowblinds bullshit. I ctrl f'd this page thereby meaning this has never been posted before btw.

 

[Coolio55]

I think people here are getting Secure Boot mixed up with the TPM itself. Secure Boot style systems are the real concern, TPM is just the enabler.
Microsoft has been historically known to fuck with the bootloader to gain an uncompetitive advantage. Just see what the developers of DR DOS and BeOS were talking about (and the US Govt. Failed to prosecute) back in 2001.
Secondly, Microsoft DOES get involved with the CPU. The upcoming successor to the TPM, Pluton, is fully integrated into CPUs and it combines the two concepts into one. Creating a new restricted system with CPU integrated hardware to store the microsoft keys.
Microsoft DOES develop hardware and this is all based on their Azure Sphere System for the Xbox One.

I don't think that CPU vendors could realistically 100% disallow Linux. Even MS themselves use it.
It would however be extremely easy to restrict it's usage to high end server hardware that normal people don't buy. Companies keep their Linux, Microsoft keeps their walled garden.
If you've ever gone through the painful process of reflashing your Android phone, imagine that for your desktop PC. Despite the restrictions put on you as the device owner, has that ever made Android phones any more secure?
Is your average person really in need of a giant hardware stack to prevent "evil maid" attacks that are typically limited to politicians and CEOs? A hardware stack that conveniently also bars them (Unless they like fiddling with keyrings) from running competing software?
Microsoft could easily stipulate that OEMs make secure boot and their signing key mandatory for all consumer devices. They've already removed the clause that OEMs must allow the end user to turn it off.

And yes, the spec 100% allows you to boot from Linux (with no dual booting) if you can convince CPU manufacturers to flash your special root key instead of the Microsoft one at the factory.
And it's not Microsoft's fault if they hand infrastructure providers an easy tool to cut out all unapproved software and then try to set a legal precedent that not doing so is negligence.

Also I have a sneaking suspicion that The Ugly One is a dramacel but that's neither here nor there.

Anyway, as for part infinity of Linux itself trying to stop you from using it. The real unzipping application is 7za from the command line. The rest can have issues with some modern zip formats.

 

[Kosher Dill]

And yes, the spec 100% allows you to boot from Linux (with no dual booting) if you can convince CPU manufacturers to flash your special root key instead of the Microsoft one at the factory.

You can still supply your own keys after the fact, it doesn't have to be from the manufacturer. (But if you need a fleet of machines that all use your custom key, then you have a major hassle on your hands.)
For now Microsoft is still playing nice when it comes to signing Linux bootloaders for use with the default Secure Boot root keys. But yes, I agree - if we ever do get into a hardware lockout situation, Secure Boot is how they will do it. It would be very easy for them to "suggest" to motherboard manufacturers that SB can't be turned off and custom keys are not allowed anymore.

 

[The Ugly One]

I don't post much on KF as much any more because it's absolute crapshoot as to whether or not a page will load on Tor, and I have plenty of secret hatespeech groups to participate in.

Secondly, Microsoft DOES get involved with the CPU.

Yes, companies that make billions of dollars in designing computer hardware do in fact work with major ISVs, including the one designing the OS that 97% of these CPUs are going to run. That is neither a theory nor retarded. The retarded theory was that Microsoft is requiring a variety of security features solely to help boost intel's and AMD's CPU sales aver the post-COVID slump in laptop sales. This is just fucking stupid.

Is your average person really in need of a giant hardware stack to prevent "evil maid" attacks that are typically limited to politicians and CEOs?

I have no idea where you got the idea that malware that uses firmware-level attacks only affects politicians and CEOs, or that only politicians and CEOs are affected by dictionary attacks run on breached data, or that only politicians and CEOs ever lose Windows laptops and tablets.

The one thing that the Linux People are 100% correct on is that if you don't want any security on your system and to ensure you maximize your attack surface, your only real option now is Linux. Microsoft has taken away your ability to park your car in the ghetto with the keys in the ignition and the door unlocked. If putting your computer ass-up in a San Francisco bathhouse is important to you, Windows just isn't a viable option any more.

A hardware stack that conveniently also bars them (Unless they like fiddling with keyrings) from running competing software?

Which applications that compete with Microsoft are you unable to run on Intel or AMD CPUs made since 2018?

And yes, the spec 100% allows you to boot from Linux (with no dual booting) if you can convince CPU manufacturers to flash your special root key instead of the Microsoft one at the factory.

One of the members of the TPM consortium is IBM. POWER10 isn't even supported by Windows. What's your operating theory here, that Microsoft is going to issue a secret kill command online that insta-bricks IBM's $6b/yr server business? If either Intel or AMD stopped allowing Linux to run on their Xeon and EPYC lines, respectively, they'd be shooting their massively profitable server chip business in the head. Azure HB series, powered by the hottest EPYC chips TSMC can spit out, has been printing money, what, you think Microsoft is going to turn off the cash spigot, effectively shooting one of its most successful products in the dick, just so they can to force the toenail-eating Slackware community to stop using LibreOffice?

Nobody in the big boy industry cares about consumer desktop Linux or makes billion-dollar plans around it. Nobody even talks about you people. You are a rounding error on the overall computing scene. That's what's so absurd about all of this, you literally think Microsoft, AMD, IBM, Intel, Qualcomm, and all these companies are collaborating on billion-dollar investments because they don't want you to run an unauthorized Team Fortress mod on your bespoke Arch Linux box or some shit, when the Linux dork/Big Compute Industry relationship is actually more like this:



Posted from my Microsoft® Windows™ 11 Phone

 

[FongJonesDong]

I don't think that CPU vendors could realistically 100% disallow Linux. Even MS themselves use it.
It would however be extremely easy to restrict it's usage to high end server hardware that normal people don't buy.

And yes, the spec 100% allows you to boot from Linux (with no dual booting) if you can convince CPU manufacturers to flash your special root key instead of the Microsoft one at the factory.
And it's not Microsoft's fault if they hand infrastructure providers an easy tool to cut out all unapproved software and then try to set a legal precedent that not doing so is negligence.

You can always set up a bootloader and/or BIOS to ignore the TPM chip, and you can clear it without having a key (for the moment). As long as the TPM spec involves this functionality, you can't 100% ban people from installing Linux. Large embedded systems, most of which run Linux, also tend to use some of the same dies as consumer products (although different part numbers), and there's no reason for CPU vendors to alienate that market.

 

[The Ugly One]

You can always set up a bootloader and/or BIOS to ignore the TPM chip, and you can clear it without having a key (for the moment). As long as the TPM spec involves this functionality, you can't 100% ban people from installing Linux. Large embedded systems, most of which run Linux, also tend to use some of the same dies as consumer products (although different part numbers), and there's no reason for CPU vendors to alienate that market.

Why do you think you have to disable TPM to install Linux?

 

[Betonhaus]

Why do you think you have to disable TPM to install Linux?

Because some people are under the impression that the TPM is a magical quantum hardline to the CIA so it can read all your data. There was a whole thread on it.

 

[xn--mck1c]

I think the main issue isn't if you can install Linux; but if you can get applications to work with it, and if Microsoft/Google gets the ability to decide how your device operates, instead of the user.

If you look at Android, the writing is already on the wall: Google is able to strongarm their way into a privileged position on the device, and act against the user's wishes, enabled by what's essentially a mobile TPM.

Without some form of hardware security, this wouldn't be possible, since if users have physical access to the device, they're able to freely modify the software's behavior according to their wishes. To prevent this, Google had to setup a system on the device that would break things by returning a negative result if the device isn't set up according to their terms. Said system has to operate from a separate section of the device that users don't have full control over, some form of hardware security module (ala TPM), lest they simply override said system to always provide a positive result.

In order to get there, Google had to do 4 things:

1) Be the sole vendor and arbiter of a service only they can provide, this being devices that ship with the Google Play Store, and Google Play Services preinstalled.
2) Strongarm hardware manufacturers into implementing the aforementioned system by gatekeeping said service behind the inclusion of hardware modules and services that ensure the device behaves according to their wishes and not the user's.
3) Strongarm application developers into relying on their services; ether via pressure from buzzword marketing or making it costlier / more troublesome to roll their own.
4) Strongarm the users into accepting their terms by gatekeeping a significant number of useful applications behind devices that operate according to their will and not theirs.

The most prominent manifestation of this is SafetyNet, or Play API attestation, which basically relies on some on-device hardware module to ensure that the device operates according to Google's specifications, and not the users.
Since a device that ships without Windows or Google Play presents an insurmountable challenge to the average user, device makers comply, or else they won't sell and get pushed out of the market.
Since most devices have it, applications are free to rely on it, (Play APIs, services etc.) instead of having to roll their own.
Since many useful apps require a device that performs according to Google's wishes, non-complying devices, while they can exist, become less and less viable.

None of this would work if Google was unable to get a majority of the devices on the market to have a TPM. The only thing holding this plan back is the large number of old devices that don't have said hardware still being used in the wild.
In fact, the most prominent workaround to these restrictions makes use of this by pretending to be one of the old devices that don't have this hardware module that contains Google's secret keys which ensure the device is running according to Google's wishes. This causes the device to fall back to basic attestation. But such "older" devices wouldn't be needing access to new features, and the execs and marketers wouldn't want their app to only have basic attestation for long, would they?

Android is an open-source project, and with the TPM, Google got that far into ensuring that the devices users purchased operate according to their wishes instead of the users. Windows is closed source. How far do you think Microsoft could go with the TPM?