I think you should read up on how secure boot works with macOS and alternate operating systems before speaking this negatively about the implementation. Apple is already giving you exactly what you’re asking for.
It’s not really even that different than a PC motherboard that gives you “Windows UEFI” and “enroll my own keys” as options.
As far as code signing, again, what do you want Apple to do here? They already gave you a master switch to turn it off. You are free to turn it off then implement your own third party code signing solution if you’d rather choose who you trust. It’s not Apple’s fault if nobody else decided to make their own trust repositories and the only alternative on the market is to have no safeguard at all.
And let’s not forget who Apple markets their computers to. These features aren’t for you and me, they’re for the non-technical customers who will absolutely get pwned by unsigned code. Go to the MacBook Neo marketing page and try to find a single image of someone writing code or even being gainfully employed.
You can turn off all protection, as you point out. So who Apple markets Neo's to isn't a factor.
> Apple’s fault if nobody else decided to make their own trust repositories and the only alternative on the market is to have no safeguard at all.
Does Apple provide a means for enabling third party trust systems, without disabling Apple's protections in general? If not, that is a serious problem of Apple's choosing. Nobody (to a first order approximation) want's to dispense with Apple's protection, or re-implement it, but to be able to carve out exceptions for specific classes of software.
Right, all they need to do is convince every end user they’re trying to distribute software to that they’re using the wrong OS and should replace their MacBook with something running Linux. No problem at all.
I decided to get into this subject in my comment before I edited it out because I thought it would be too much of a tangent/ruffle too many feathers.
But, yeah, macOS power users these days seem to spend a lot of time criticizing the OS and the company and never seem to just switch to something else.
Apple is the 4th most popular PC manufacturer on the market. You can use something else. It's not a monopoly, nor a duopoly like with iOS.
I switched to Linux, and I've been beyond shocked at how smooth it's been. It's been better than both Mac and Windows in more ways than I expected. And sure, not perfect, but still.
I can charitably believe this comment is not disingenuous, however, there are effectively two options, which are Windows and macOS, regardless of three manufacturers making more Windows machines than Apple at number four with Mac. I would call it an effective duopoly
There are effectively two options if you dismiss Linux a priori.
Which yes, many people do. There are plenty of people who have no desire to try Linux. And if you're a developer then you have to consider those people, because many of the people who use your software are the type with no desire to try Linux.
But there are fewer and fewer reasons not to try Linux, and that group of "I'd never use Linux", while still large, is slowly shrinking. I'd argue that Microsoft is doing more than Apple is to push people into reconsidering Linux (and, often, discovering that it's actually pretty good these days, and that your techie friend whom you call all the time to help you with Windows is actually happy to help you with your Linux questions instead).
But slowly, over time, it's making less and less sense to dismiss Linux a priori.
> But there are fewer and fewer reasons not to try Linux
Does my existing hardware connect to the internet and go to sleep when I close the lid? Does the hardware I can buy from major retailers do the same thing?
I know these are _technically_ vendor problems and not Linux problems, but I’ve got enough things to figure out without adding “what chipset does this high end laptop use” to the mix
The problem is that you're buying hardware designed for Windows, putting Linux on it instead, and expecting to have no issues whatsoever. I don't think that's practical.
When you try to run Windows on hardware designed for Linux, you run into similar fiddly problems. Exhibit A, the Steam Deck.
If you want a laptop that the manufacturer explicitly designed to be Linux compatible, the recent Frameworks are worth a look. Or System76.
No, the problem is I’m buying hardware that’s readily available to me.
The cheapest framework laptop I can assemble in the UK at the time of writing this is “estimated” at £1226. System76 seems to be us based and the pricing is similar. When I search for Linux laptops on Lenovo, I get chromebooks, dell’s cheapest option is £1399 and I can’t actually figure out what’s going on with HP.
> putting Linux on it instead, and expecting to have no issues whatsoever. I don't think that's practical.
I’m not looking for perfection - windows and Mac are both chock full of issues. But I do expect the basics to work.
You can just buy any regular reasonably popular laptop hardware it’s almost certainly going to work just fine with Linux.
You don’t need to buy a Lenovo that is Linux specific. They’re all just going to work.
This assumption that Linux is going to have hardware compatibility problems is super outdated.
And in the age of AI and
YouTube reviews it’s really not that hard to figure out if any old computer has decent compatibility. AI also makes initial setup and troubleshooting a lot easier.
If you can enable a third party trust system you completely open it up for abuse. If I put my threat actor hat on, I love your idea because now I have an alternative codepath to try and exploit (where you do store third-party trusted roots for code-signing/notarization evaluations that cannot be tampered with, how do you load them, verify them, etc), but now instead of having to dance around bypassing Gatekeeper, I can just try and convince the user to install my certificates and voila, my malware behaves like a legitimate app.
Apple's root of trust for the OS and thus anything that passes AMFI/Gatekeeper scans is built into the hardware. There is no safe mechanism for introducing other roots of trust that is worth the effort.
If you don't trust Apple, why the hell are you buying their computers at all?
> If you don't trust Apple, why the hell are you buying their computers at all?
This is the exact same false dichotomy they mentioned; it's perfectly reasonable to have a set of trusted software vendors that includes Apple but also some others, while the only choices that they support are either just Apple or literally anyone in the universe. You're conflating "trusting Apple" with "trusting no one but Apple to make it sound like the opposite of the latter is somehow also contradictory with the former.
Claiming it's "not worth the effort" is a lot easier when you've already muddied the waters like this.
A human can sit down and say “I’m going to make sure this is correct on the first pass and make sure I make an exact copy.”
They have cognitive awareness of which tasks are highly critical and need more checking and re-checking without being prompted to think that way.
For a human, time doesn’t stop when the first pass of the prompt and response is over. An LLM effectively wipes its memory of what it just did unless something is keeping track of a highly resource constrained context.
An LLM is like an author of a book that immediately closes its eyes and wipes its memory after writing a chapter. Sure, it can pull some of that back in the next query via context, and it can regain context very quickly, but it effectively has no memory of the exact thing it just did.
When a human is doing these tasks there is a lot of room for mistakes but there’s also a wildly higher capacity for flowing through time.
Humans understand what mistakes are and can reason about what constitutes a mistake and what doesn’t. LLMs can’t do that.
It’s for the same reason that they will invent bullshit instead of saying “I don’t know”, when they don’t know. They don’t have a concept of accuracy of facts.
The author did a horrible job doing laptop research if the goal was to replace a MacBook’s build quality and overall vibe.
I have no idea why this random Mediatek chip was the qualifier for finding a system.
Just Josh Tech (YouTube) and their associated site bestlaptop.deals is my favorite resource at the moment for laptop reviews and for finding the best fit. I’m not affiliated with them in any way, I just think they are thorough and present with a critical eye avoiding a lot of hype YouTuber BS.
They aren’t the best at recommendations for Linux laptops as they don’t fully install the OS but they at least try it out on a live image.
To me the clear winner right now for people who like Linux and want something that’s a MacBook-like experience is the Framework 13 Pro. Framework appears to have resolved basically all of the shortcomings of the current revision (which still is no slouch), they’ve added a CNC aluminum build and haptic trackpad, and it’s a first-class Linux experience that’s Ubuntu certified.
Other than that, I’d be looking at options like the Lenovo Yoga Pro 7i Aura Edition 15, maybe even a Zenbook Duo 2026 if the idea of a second screen on the go is appealing and money is no object.
Someone looking for some discrete GPU performance that rivals or beats MacBook Pros equipped with Pro or Max chips can look at the Zephyrus G14/G16. Sure, they’re “gamer” laptops, but I really like them in person and they feel very premium. They’re pretty well established as the best thin and light gaming laptops on the market, very close in dimensions to MacBook Pro.
I very often think about how much money Americans spend just on basic infrastructure needs compared to people who live in places built at a more sensible scale.
If I got a job in Arlington Texas right now, I’d first need to load myself up with a car payment and spend 4-5 figures per year just for basic needs like groceries and work, even if I lived within walking distance of that job.
Arlington, with a population of over 350,000, has no scheduled route public transportation service.
American towns and cities never seem to think about things like like “how many feet of sewer line/streets/utility lines and miles of road do we need for each resident?” or “how much population/economic activity per acre do we need to break even on services?”
Did you ever consider the idea that not everyone wants to live in the typical "urban" environment?
Not having public transportation or high-density housing nearby is a feature and a desirable property.
> I’d first need to load myself up with a car payment and spend 4-5 figures per year
Also a feature: if you can't afford this, perhaps that isn't the community for you?
This is a fairly typical agenda: "I want to spend your money turning your city into something you don't want it to be so some theoretical utopia can be actualized."
No matter how much crying and extolling of virtues you do: nothing is going to make me ride the bus. No matter how many "road diets" you impose, no matter how many lanes you kill by dedicating them to buses: I'm not going to ride your bus system. I'll just take my tax dollars (which far exceed that of typical bus ridership) elsewhere.
I ride the subway everywhere in NYC, but not every city needs to become NYC.
Part of what I think they were getting at is that suburban living is usually a long term burden on state budgets because the lower density means that maintenance costs aren't fully covered by tax revenue. If people want to live in these communities they should be expected to cover the costs, but since the necessary tax increases aren't popular they never get passed and the budget becomes unbalanced
I completely understand your reaction, and it's a very typical one when I talk about this subject. I hope you're willing to engage in a productive conversation and maybe you'll come away with at least a little new perspective.
I am not at all advocating for stifling urban density. I never suggested that nor ever talked about building subways or skyscrapers.
The organization I linked to is called "Strong Towns" not "Strong Cities" and that is on purpose.
> Also a feature: if you can't afford this, perhaps that isn't the community for you?
Let's reframe this: If I'm a business owner, I can pay an American breadwinner $100,000 and they'll spend $10,000 on transportation per year for their family. Or, I can hire someone who lives in a place where they don't have to spend that much and I can pay them $95,000 a year. Maybe that other family only owns one car per family instead of two, I'm not even saying that they never drive. They just don't have to use a car to reach 100% of the destinations they want to reach in their life (grocery store, school, work, playground, etc).
This is what I'm really getting at here: Americans collectively blowing all this money on longer roads and sewer lines and a bunch of half-empty parking lots that don't generate tax income and economic activity makes America less competitive on the global stage. It’s a silent drag on the economy.
This is before we even dive into the rabbit hole of the statement you just made: that you implicitly believe that this self-reliant car-dependent transportation system makes it more difficult to be poor. What happens if my car breaks down before my first day at work at an entry level hourly job? I'm going to be fired, and then I will have no job to pay for fixing my car.
You don't even have to be pro-urbanism or prefer to walk to places to understand that argument.
> This is a fairly typical agenda: "I want to spend your money turning your city into something you don't want it to be so some theoretical utopia can be actualized."
1. What do you want your city to be? Can you describe it? What environments in your city/town do you enjoy spending time in? Which ones do you find uncomfortable to be in? What's it like to stand in those places, outside of your vehicle?
2. Is the utopia theoretical? Try visiting the downtown of any small railroad town in the US and observe the scale of it. How many millions of Americans per year travel internationally to experience walkable environments? Small towns that are comfortable to traverse without driving do exist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztpcWUqVpIg
> No matter how much crying
I do not recall crying
> nothing is going to make me ride the bus
> I ride the subway everywhere in NYC
Now you're sending mixed signals, I guess. My hypothesis is that you don't actually know what it's like to ride the bus, and the idea scares you. I hear you. You've probably never been on one that is frequent or pleasant, probably just your typical infrequent broken-down slow bus that is underfunded in America, the kind of bus where you have to be extremely desperate to resort to using it. So you get on the bus and that's the demographic, and it makes you uncomfortable.
Have you ever been to Disney World? Did you ride the bus there? Why didn't you just drive up to the gate?
Have you ever ridden a bus from the airport parking to the airport? Why did you do that? Why not just drive up to the airport?
> no matter how many lanes you kill by dedicating them to buses
Even if you prefer to drive, you should actually want what I want, because it alleviates traffic. If your goal is to get more people to drive, you will have more traffic.
> I'll just take my tax dollars (which far exceed that of typical bus ridership) elsewhere.
The place you are taking your tax dollar is into sewer line reconstruction. it really isn't even all that much about transportation itself, it's about property tax efficiency.
Sometimes you just have to accept the current pricing and buy what you need to buy (assuming you need to buy anything at all).
7 years ago it was the same price, but then again, the last 7 years have involved accelerated inflation. So, the same price is actually a lower price.
If you're looking for a card in the sane $300 area, the Intel ARC B580 (12GB) or the RX 9060XT (8GB) are a reasonable value. If you want 12GB+ from Nvidia or AMD the used market in previous generations is a good place to look: maybe something like a RTX 3060Ti (12GB) or RX6800XT (16GB).
I personally don't think the GPU market is incredibly miserable. Maybe I am just used to the pain or something? Nvidia has a bit of a tax where but something like the RX 9070XT is basically the 3rd fastest gaming GPU money can buy and it's around $700. (I'm not sure why the 5070ti costs $200 more even given Nvidia's software advantages. It performs almost identically it just doesn't make purchase sense)
I don't really agree with this. Motherboard prices haven't been moved at all by AI.
I would also say that most consumers, who are almost exclusively buying gaming-oriented boards, do not need anything high end. They can pretty much buy the cheapest board available.
I am shopping around for a mini ITX board and the difference between something at $180 and something at $400 is basically one to two faster USB ports, which are pretty much irrelevant on desktop computers, and a few minor conveniences that I imagine most people can do without.
The higher-end chipsets add no discernible advantage and there are no CPUs that are unsupported by the lower end chipsets (on the AMD side, at least).
The high end stuff is just available for people with a lot of money.
I am massively sick of gaming focused boards. I don’t want my board to be “tough” or “mil-spec” or be extra shiny or have fancy-proprietary-auto-overclock. I want a reliable board that complies with all the specs it claims to support. Low idle power consumption would be nice, too.
This is obnoxiously difficult to shop for in the desktop/workstation space.
The PCIe lanes are the worst. You have x16 slots that run x1, you need to check slots with m.2 to make sure an x8 doesn't become x4 if you insert storage. Wait if I plug something into the thunderbolt port my 10g network card runs at half speed? Obviously these are actual physical limitation from PCIe lane counts, but it makes it impossible to search. Just painfull.
My advice to anyone doing motherboard shopping is to read the manual off the manufacture's site before deciding. The pcie lane tradeoffs tend to be in the block diagram next to the contents page.
This is exactly why my comment goes over the head of people who cry just get the basic boards. No, this is why the basic boards for $100 don't cut it. You now need to dive into the technical data and realize that the $100 board seems like a deal for a reason, and suddenly the $300+ category is your only option if you want to get a PC that doesn't run on fake specs.
I'm just struggling to figure out how many people actually need the PCIe lanes for anything more than GPUs and storage, though.
Like, what are you actually connecting your desktop to?
The only reason laptops depend on Thunderbolt is because they have limited internal expansion and need high performance external I/O.
If you need more things than gaming boards offer then obviously you have very advanced needs and can go pay for a workstation board, something like an sTR5 socket Threadripper board.
They exist to partition capability so that enterprises can’t connect all of their peripherals and some ECC memory to get the same functionality for 1/10 the price. It’s not a physical limitation.
Obviously market tiering is part of it and you can play tricks with north and south bridge and pcie switches (which adds cost), but a ryzen board that advertises a pcie 5.0 x16 gpu slot and 5.0 x4 m2 slot only has 4 lanes left to work with from the cpu (i.e the cpus only have 24 usable lanes). Which while you can play with generations to get more lanes it's effectively still 16gb/s. That needs to cover network, extra m2 slots, usbs, as well as the extra PCIe slots.
I don't mind having to work within those physical limits but I do want to be able to search for boards that support N components. i.e 1x 4.0x8, 2x 3.0x8, 4x 5.0x4 . But the best you can search for is physical sizes of pcie slots and then dive into a spec sheet for each one, only to find that the 6 x16 slots only have 1.0x1 of bandwidth each.
I think the biggest aspect is that there’s so little demand for the configuration that you’re looking for.
Most people only need the PCI lanes for graphics cards and storage. There aren’t many other internally installed devices out there that actually need that kind of bandwidth, and a lot of those use cases are already covered by alternatives like Ethernet or USB, or they’re already on your board (m.2 slots, fast Ethernet ports).
The 6x16 slots with 1.0x1 bandwidth are there so that people can plug in stuff like sound cards and other random stuff that generally has pretty light bandwidth needs.
If I just search for “PCIe card” on Newegg most of the resulting products max out at x4, and most of the ones that do are already on the board (m.2 cards, additional USB/Thunderbolt).
The one use case that seemed useful and unusual in my search results was a quad port HD video capture card which seemed to require x4 bandwidth.
If you had a scenario like you describe where there isn’t a single x16 slot, you’ve instantly annoyed 95% of the market that needs that full bandwidth for a GPU, whether it be for gaming or for professional applications.
Some solutions that avoid expensive workstation boards and CPUs include getting a higher end chipset to get gaming boards that come with 2x x16 slots, or you can use accessories and adapters that just plug into m.2 slots.
What you are asking for is a workstation motherboard, which does exist. Filter by the sTR5 socket for AMD Threadripper chips, for example.
Unfortunately, as far as finding something cheaper than that, you're looking for a product that appeals to a very small to non-existent market demographic.
Most of the buyers who want workstation boards (companies) do not want a computer that requires assembly.
The demographic that builds their own PC is almost exclusively doing so to play games.
Everyone else who wants to use a computer wants a portable laptop.
The good news is that all the complaints you have about gaming boards are mostly cosmetic. There's nothing unreliable about gaming boards. They all support the specs they claim to support. You don't have to use any overclocking features (I don't). They are off by default.
If you want low idle power consumption, what you actually want is a system that has soldered RAM (LPDDR) which essentially goes against the other parameters of what you asked for. You don't want a module desktop PC at all if that's your parameter. What you really want is a mini PC or a Mac mini.
You're asking for a workstation board with low idle power consumption, but nobody who wants that is optimizing for low idle power consumption.
The best system for you is probably an HP, Dell, or Lenovo workstation PC. The good news for you is that these are all over eBay as corporations tend to sell them in bulk when they're done with them in just a few short years. They're reliable, quiet, and have low idle power consumption. Or, you can go with the big workstations that support ECC RAM.
If it only happens 1% of the time that’s SO much money.
50,000 guests per day, let’s say average person is spending $200 in a day…if 1% of them are doing some kind of entrance fraud you’re looking at $36.5 million dollars per year.
Change the number how you want, even 0.1% is still millions of dollars. I'm not claiming the real number is 1% and I thought that should have been obvious.
At 0.1% (which still seems high) you lose out on the entrance fee but still get paid for food, drinks, memorabilia etc. Compare that to the cost for the system and the negative publicity and I'm not sure it's worth it (unless they have another motive they don't want to admit)
You’re allowed to bring in snacks to Disney parks. Pretty much any food that doesn’t need refrigeration is okay to bring. Water is free. You can absolutely ride rides and spend nothing and consume the lines of paying customers.
I imagine if you’re willing to try to get in for free or share your pass among multiple people against park rules you’re the kind of person motivated to avoid spending money.
Also, someone who makes the company money and is breaking rules is still not worth keeping as a customer. If someone spends $1000 at the Mickey Mouse gift they don’t get a pass to break other rules of the grounds just because they were profitable.
This seems reasonable. They seem to be implementing this technology with hashes [1] and they are deleting the data within 30 days.
Some more things to consider:
- Walt Disney World has already been using fingerprints to verify access card and person match so you don’t share entrance passes for many years.
- You are already on private property in a setting with no expectation of privacy.
- Disney has been recording guests on security cameras since before the digital era. Your ride vehicle is always in sight of active video surveillance for ride safety purposes. You have been tracked in various ways inside the property for years and that’s not that crazy, again, considering you’re on private property.
- Universal Studios also uses entry photography likely for the exact same purpose
This is all not to say that these things being normalized doesn’t make them right but, still, I think it’s very not new stuff here. This in my opinion seems like the exact kind of environment where this kind of thing is reasonable.
They’ve basically been doing all of this already and the only difference now is that it’s used specifically for entrance gate purposes.
[1] from Disney’s statement linked within the article:
> These entrance lanes: (1) use images of your face taken by a camera at the entrance and the image of your face that was saved when you first used the ticket or pass; (2) employ biometric technology to convert those images into unique numerical values; (3) compare the numerical values to find a match; and (4) except in cases where data must be maintained for legal or fraud-prevention purposes, delete all numerical values within 30 days of creation. Participation is optional. Entrance lanes that do not employ facial recognition technology are also available.
This line of thinking is outdated. That sort of phrase was coined before the advent of data tracking agencies, ad agencies, digital cameras, unlimited video and audio retention.
I understand I cannot expect complete privacy from another individual on the street, although a random person seeing me and being recorded, tracked, analzyed and then targeted via ads and used in AI training is a different sort of privacy violation in my opinion. I don't see why we can't or shouldn't expect companies to not employe privacy raping technology just because we are out in "public".
"This in my opinion seems like the exact kind of environment where this kind of thing is reasonable."
Why? Disneyland first opening in 1955, for 50 years they ran fine without cameras, facial recognition, etc. Are we forgetting not too long ago we lived in a world without all of this and we were perfectly fine? The common cop outs like "crime" and "abuse" will occur if cameras didn't exist are stupid. Crime is significantly higher now, despite 24/7 surveillance and tracking. We are also kidding ourselves if we think they are ONLY using it for protection. All this data is fed straight into 900+ shell companies (many of which are ramps for the feds).
No expectation of privacy does not mean that I don't think privacy laws should protect visitors to that property. It just means that as a wide concept, you are on someone else's property and they're allowed to observe you with the exception of privacy spaces like restrooms.
I will remind us all Disneyland already operates in a state with relatively strong privacy laws and I imagine they are following CCPA.
What I mean by "no expectation of privacy" is that businesses are allowed to monitor their premises and, yeah, they're allowed to observe their customers and make business decisions based on those observations. There's nothing inherently morally or legally wrong with that.
If you come into my bakery I'm allowed to watch you and observe that you like buying more cinnamon rolls than donuts and write down that information. If you don't like that I do that, you have the choice to not visit my property.
> Are we forgetting not too long ago we lived in a world without all of this and we were perfectly fine?
Again this is private property. We're all free to not go there. My private property didn't have a security camera in 1995, but I chose to add one in 2026. It's irrelevant to you why I chose to do that or whether you feel like I was perfectly fine before I added it. It's my property. If you don't like it, stay off of it. If we were talking about the state government putting AI tracking cameras on the streets or peeking into homes I would have a much different stance (e.g., I am very much against Flock's business).
Did everyone forget about the years they were wandering around with MagicBands with both short- and long-range RFID designed for Disney to customize experiences directly down to the personal level?
Would it be invasive for you to be required to walk around naked? Because naturism resorts with those rules exist.
These examples, of course, does not bother you because you decide not to go to them if you don't want to go to them.
I am not advocating for a complete lack of privacy laws. Disney isn't allowed to put cameras in bathrooms. Disney is required to comply with CCPA in California. I'm just pointing out that private property owners are allowed to generally do this stuff, and pointing out that Disney seems to have some privacy measures in place (e.g., utilizing hashes, having a short retention window, etc).
What if tickets where given with devices; the device would hold the hash value of the facial recognition and zero data would be stored outside of the device. have open 3rd party reviews of these processes and made public so we keep our world safe but without the bullshit excuse that "privacy has to be given up for security".
I think the pathetic thing about this is that it’s so much less intuitive than stuff like cloudflare and Anubis.
Google, a multi-billion dollar company, is going to make the customers of their corporate clients pull out a phone and do some bullshit just to visit a website.
Meanwhile, when Cloudflare/Anubis verifies you there’s zero required interaction and you barely even see the anime character because it all loads so fast. At most Cloudflare makes you check a box.
I hear this all the time, but I would point out that US car manufacturers are heavily subsidized as well. I’m sure other countries do their own things that effectively subsidize their automotive industries as well.
NAFTA and its successor keeps a lot of automotive production and assembly in North America.
The chicken tax protects American manufacturers from foreign competition on trucks and vans.
Tesla was started on the foundations of inexpensive loans and a “free” factory courtesy of government economic stimulus.
GM was bailed out and briefly owned by the federal government, saved by below-market rate loans.
Stellantis is also an organization that owes its existence on a bankruptcy bail-out package.
The US financially incentivizes car usage, period. They underfund transit projects, allow the gas tax rate to lag inflation, make zoning laws that require car ownership, and more. One great way to subsidize car companies is to make car ownership mandatory.
State and local governments frequently give tax incentives to major assembly plants in the name of preserving jobs for their constituents. For example, GM had a $60 million tax break to keep the Lordstown, OH plant open. Some of this was clawed back after the plant closed anyway.
CAFE standards incentivize manufacturers to build SUVs that aren’t practical or popular in many other markets, essentially enshrining America-specific car design, further separating the American market from global car designs. Companies like BYD can’t compete with American cars if they don’t sell models that resemble popular choices like the Ford F-150, which are designs which would be completely insane if sold in the Chinese, Japanese, and European markets.
Ok but we are talking about tens of billions versus tens of millions. And some good old fashioned protectionism which has limited effect on the global market which we are discussing at the moment.
It’s not really even that different than a PC motherboard that gives you “Windows UEFI” and “enroll my own keys” as options.
https://asahilinux.org/docs/platform/security/
As far as code signing, again, what do you want Apple to do here? They already gave you a master switch to turn it off. You are free to turn it off then implement your own third party code signing solution if you’d rather choose who you trust. It’s not Apple’s fault if nobody else decided to make their own trust repositories and the only alternative on the market is to have no safeguard at all.
And let’s not forget who Apple markets their computers to. These features aren’t for you and me, they’re for the non-technical customers who will absolutely get pwned by unsigned code. Go to the MacBook Neo marketing page and try to find a single image of someone writing code or even being gainfully employed.
reply