@emilis @dhfir
It's literally not that bad even with the current requirements. The differences between Win10 and Win11 are minimal anyway, and by the time Win10 reaches it's expiration date, any systems currently not compatible with Win11 will be due for a complete overhaul (if they aren't already).

@alyx @dhfir As I said – I expected a backpedal on this argument because it’s not even the main issue, as far as I’m concerned. A requirement for both TPM and secureboot is the egregious thing here. Especially in my case, where secureboot does not allow me to run some of the software I do.

@emilis @dhfir
I disagree. Frankly, it was to be expected that Microsoft would try to push stricter security policies, considering they're trying desperately to compete with Apple and Android, that are doing their own stuff for security.

@alyx @dhfir That’s their angle, anyway. You will forgive me for not trusting them with all they’re asking for, I hope.

@emilis @alyx @dhfir I mean, it's Windows for fuck's sake. They work with the government to put backdoors in their software, you shouldn't trust them in any capacity. The fact is that Unix-like operating systems have remained more secure without all these unnecessary features. Although I do believe the security model of Android is better than both. TPM or whatever seems like such a small thing compared to things like proper program isolation, encryption or a better permission system. M$ is not actually doing anything to shift the model so I'm not convinced that they actually care about security.

Microsoft has been working on making Windows as closed down as possible. I think this is the true motives of Microsoft. I think this is a boiling frog kind of situation where they make small changes over a long time with bullshit justifications rather than introduce new changes all at once.