Re:Intel seems awfully scared of Graviton2. Why pay for this...
by selfhoster11 on Monday December 13, 2021 @05:08AM
(#29538276)
ARM popularised the concept of bootloader locking. I don't think so.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Intel seems awfully scared of Graviton2. Why pay for this...
by jfrunyon on Monday December 13, 2021 @05:33PM
(#29545576)
Has absolutely zero to do with either openness or ARM.
Re:Intel seems awfully scared of Graviton2. Why pay for this...
by selfhoster11 on Monday December 13, 2021 @10:10PM
(#29547732)
It certainly does. An architecture isn't just about the ISA, but the culture around it too. The culture around ARM mobile phones and tablets heavily emphasized bootloader locking, which accelerated its spread to x86 too - which works contrary to the notion of openness.
Re:Intel seems awfully scared of Graviton2. Why pay for this...
by jfrunyon on Tuesday December 14, 2021 @05:24PM
(#29558939)
> The culture around ARM mobile phones and tablets heavily emphasized bootloader locking
Virtually all of which are user-unlockable. But keep telling me how unopen they are?
(BTW, those of us who actually want secure systems very much appreciate the fact that malware can't overwrite my boot sector without a hardware-level vulnerability.)
Re:Intel seems awfully scared of Graviton2. Why pay for this...
by GhettoComputers on Tuesday December 14, 2021 @04:13AM
(#29549744)
If its good they'll make a hack to unlock it. Have phones that were sold locked, so many security bugs that they are easily unlocked.