none of my computers use ((((x86))) anymore, its all MIPS, ARM, or RISC-V nowfeels good not being in the intelaviv goynet
ok
all my computers use amd64
I wish I could say this, but I'm posting from my x86 gayman pc. At least it's AMD/AMD.
>>101204188good goynever turn off (((Secure Boot))) please!
>>101204167based, wish i could say the same
>>101204167i've been using amd cpus since 2006
>>101204167>>101204200>incelspeakfirst day outside /pol/, nigga?
>>101204200Why do you consider SecureBoot (something that can be turned off in 3 clicks) an actual threat but give ARM devices a pass?
>>101204167wow you replaced all of known backdoors for unknown ones, but without software support
>>101204337>j-just trust the (((EFI))) to turn it off>>101204366>e-everything's backdoored, who cares!!!suffer, cattle
>>101204366i've done the same by buying a gigaset gs5 liteit just the bed just a few hours ago. bootloops lolz and they have no downloads of roms on their site today anymore unlike march when i last lookedfree refund but my data is rekti blame god for this
i'm a manchild and still play videogames, otherwise i'd get risc-v with linux and live in a cabin in the woods
>>101204337Secure Boot can be turned off in three clicks because Microsoft decreed it so. Why do you spread FUD that revolves around what could happen in an ARM-dominant future when Microsoft could also just snap their fingers and lock-down every x86 PC?
>>101204440>>101204440shit the bed*ayyyyeven sentences are rekt now ;_;
>>101204427>suffer, cattleBoy I sure am suffering with my cheap high performance hardware and excellent software compatibility
>>101204167imagine unironically paying $5000 for a currybook with a built in hardware backdoor that has it's own CPU, OS, and 2GB RAM that monitors and spies on everything you do 24/7 for uploading to Tim Apple's pajeet botnet
>>101204200Implying I use Secure Boot, TPM or even UEFI.While UEFI is not "harmful" I don't see the point of it. I can use it and can not use it. But the other ones I will never enable.
>>101204454The idea is that the very vast majority of ARM devices devices are locked down, and it's not of Microsoft's doing. Seems weird to rail against so called injustices in x86 and just completely ignore the reality going on in non-x86 devices.Secure boot isn't even something that's Microsoft's doing. It's an industry standard and exists on devices that will literally never run an MS OS
>>101204506>excellent software compatibilityintelaviv goycattle scream when binaries require anything more than SSE2know your place, cattle
>>101204595rentfree
>>101204619toilet free
>>101204618no one runs 22 year old hardware sczhio
>>101204427>hurr durr, yknow i'm actually retardedsorry to hear that>>101204454>because Microsoft decreed it soMicrosoft decides what every single EFI device manufacturer on the planet does with their products? Holy shit, didn't know they rule the entire world.>Why do you spread FUD that revolves around what could happenwhat FUD?It has nothing to do with SecureBoot. The number of ARM devices that have been proven to be backdoored through software AND hardware eclipses amd64 by orders of magnitude.Also, >what could happenwhat amounts to 3 clicks on PCs and laptops needs "jailbreaks", "rooting" and "bootloader unlocking" on iPhones and Android, all of them being procedures infinitely harder to pull off, sometimes irreversible and sometimes straight up impossible because that's just how locked down ARM garbage is.
>>101204676>no argumenti accept your defeat>>101204674except intelaviv goycattle
>>101204676>Microsoft decides what every single EFI device manufacturer on the planet does with their products? Holy shit, didn't know they rule the entire world.Essentially, yes. They have a pretty strict list of requirements of what manufacturers have to do to be able to ship their laptops with Windows on them. One of those requirements is that it must be possible to disable Secure Boot. Since Microsoft controls what everyone wants (Windows,) that makes them the ultimate gatekeepers. If they removed that requirement tomorrow, guaranteed there'd be shitty consumer laptops where you couldn't disable it.>what amounts to 3 clicks on PCs and laptops needs "jailbreaks", "rooting" and "bootloader unlocking" on iPhones and Android"I just know about phones" ass posting. Why aren't you embarrassed that your only exposure to ARM is through phones? (Or chinesium SBCs?) Do you think the few x86 phones were any better? Literally nothing about the ISA changes anything about how easy or hard a device is to unlock.
>>101204674I literally have a 2 '99 Celeron Optiplexes (Optipli?) Hilariously, the only modern OS I can run on them is OpenBSD because OpenBSD runs on machines without SSE2. Perfect for the schizo.
>RISC-VPosers always get overboard.What's funnier is the other posers joining in.
>>101204937>Essentially, yes.No you're just delusional. If M$ decided to ban a manufacturer from shipping laptops with Windows, they would continue to sell without it preinstalled as they've been doing forever in a corporate setting, where software licenses are managed separately. Consumer sales would continue as well, except installing windows would now become a retailer's task, probably offered as a separate service to select during checkout (they've been doing that for decades).>They have a pretty strict list of requirements of what manufacturers have to do to be able to ship their laptops with Windows on themGo ahead, post them. Then explain why manufacturers who have nothing to do with laptops ship it anyway and even laptops themselves include Canonical's shim keys by default.>Why aren't you embarrassed that your only exposure to ARM is through phones?Why aren't you embarrassed that your whole argument discards the overwhelming majority of ARM devices which are demonstrably locked & backdoored even before SecureBoot comes into play?>Literally nothing about the ISA changes anything about how easy or hard a device is to unlockYeah, I'm glad we agree that the premise of this thread is horseshit.
>>101205014
>>101204167I look like that
>>101204167senpai :3
>>101204167congratulations anon. I worry for the compatibility though. You are trailblazing for the rest of us though
>>101204221>using incel unironicallyit's time to go back
>>101204937>"I just know about phones" ass posting. Why aren't you embarrassed that your only exposure to ARM is through phones? microsoft has losing market share and they still didn't pull the shit crapple and arm do, but you want me to hate them more than these jail platforms.fuck off.
>>101204167i have a sister who looks like that
>>101204595OP never mentioned Apple, retard.
>>101204454Anon doesn't know about TrustZone or about ARM Confidential Compute. He is oblivious to the fact that there is no counterpart for BIOS/UEFI on ARM, so each and every distro targeting an ARM system need to be built separately. Outside of SBCs, they also depend on community hacks which may or may not happen.
>>101209167>BIOSproprietary botnet>UEFIa shitter OVMF, and proprietary botnetARM wins by default
>>101210915kill yourself
>>101205450>except installing windows would now become a retailer's taskTalk about delusion. This would never happen, because the manufacturer would just cave immediately to Microsoft's requirements, but if it did happen, Microsoft could legally prevent retailers from doing this (to protect their image or whatever.)>Go ahead, post them.https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/operating-system-security/system-security/secure-the-windows-10-boot-process#secure-boot>Why aren't you embarrassed that your whole argument discards the overwhelming majority of ARM devices which are demonstrably locked & backdoored even before SecureBoot comes into play?Because that's a phone problem, not an ARM problem. The few ARM servers and workstations obviously don't have this problem. The few x86 phones have exactly the same problems. The ISA doesn't have any influence on it. The ISA doesn't even have anything to do with UEFI or Secure Boot. Windows 11 on ARM laptops have UEFI, ACPI and Secure Boot.>include Canonical's shim keys by default.Except that's not Canonical's key. The shim binaries are signed by Microsoft.>Yeah, I'm glad we agree that the premise of this thread is horseshit.x86 vs ARM shouldn't be about schizo paranoia of backdoors or uninformed phoneposter arguments about the death of free operating systems. It should be about x86 being a dogshit ISA and Intlel being a dogshit company, which is irrefutable.
>>101210956Retard.Also the "counterpart for UEFI" on ARM is UEFI you double retard. UEFI works on ARM.
>>101204167>MIPS, ARM, or RISC-VCan you daily drive those with good performance? Non applel in the case of ARM there. Any richfags own a Talos, Ampere, or other similar type thing and and drive it?
>>101205880No you don't because if you did I'd have oathed you, but my house is empty.
>>101211021>It should be about x86 being a dogshit ISA and Intlel being a dogshit companyOh, so you're a fanboyI was wondering why a retard with strong opinions would object to SecureBoot without knowing that it has to enable you to enroll your own keys, nullifying the>muh locked down shit>muh microsoft owns everythingargumentSee >>101209167 and kill yourself, you know nothing about UEFI, let alone SB
>>101204167~
>>101211035Show me the UEFI on poodroid phones, or eero modems anon? How about macbooks? ipads? Huh, you can't?
>all my devices are locked down garbageWhy are you bragging about that?
>>101213217>hate something>get called a fanboyOk retard. Maybe I am a fanboy of every single ISA that isn't x86 and every single tech company that isn't Intlel. What now?>>101213929I won't do that until you show me the UEFI on x86 phones (eg. ASUS Zenfone 5.) Huh, you can't?
>>101213274uoooooohhhh ToT
>none of my women have pussies anymore, its all penises with balls, penises without balls, or surgical axe wounds now
>>101218007keko
