I've made other comments before about how we used to cheer for Google back in the 00's because they were the upstart that took on the entrenched competitors (Microsoft primarily). Look what Google has become today - the very thing we hoped they would destroy, and they are so much worse about it.

Red Hat/IBM ultimately owned by the same people as Google: shareholders. Nothing will ever stand in the way of their greed. If this technology is allowed to exist, there's no reason to think that it too will be used against our interests.

Secureboot uses certificates to verify integrity. The user is able to install new certificates. So I'd say it is the user? I'm not an expert though and their may be hardware out there that doesn't allow new certificates.

It's configurable.

Nvidia can't meaningfully sign their Linux drivers. A distribution can, in theory, include Nvidia drivers in their build and sign it, but the logistics of out of tree drivers is just impossible.

Redhat toys with the concept of a whitelisted ABI for some limited range of kernels, but I've never seen a driver actually roll with that.

Basically Linux would need to embrace some form of ABI, and there's been zero interest in doing so.

There’s a universe of difference between changes you intended to make in your system, and changes you didn’t intend because a state actor attacked you based on your social media criticism.

Unlike with closed source software, you can always decide you don’t want your software to be secure.

What you should be worried about is not software but hardware.

Uhhhh...wha?

This would be a big deal for hardware manufacturers or product manufacturers in securing their devices. Only a tiny, tiny fraction of Linux users are just desktop jockeys.

I just don’t want see the garbage that is the Android Play Store where apps refuse to run because we run an OS that isn’t profitable to Google.

I think the possibility that this could happen is dangerously high.

Everything starts with good intentions. Everything ultimately leads to locking end users out of their personal freedoms.

Since the user is the one doing the cheating, most likely no, unfortunately.

That would actually be the wrong thing to want. In an ideal system trust would always begin by the owner of the hardware, where possible, not the software or vendor they decide to trust.

First the person that bought the system should take the ownership by overwriting the previous owners keys, and from there start signing the vendors key, they decide to put their trust in. Because it is important that the system is trustworthy to the end user/owner first.

Any anti-cheat mechanism relies on not trusting the person that owns the hardware, and why would that be good?

Anti-cheats do NOT need to be client-side… Polar is server-sided, yet it has practically killed cheating in Minecraft.

I can't imagine anyone sane would hold onto the belief that it will remain just "a nice feature to enable" after looking at the historical encroachment of commercial interests in mobile phone boot chain setups. I tell you the truth that after widespread adoption this WILL turn into a "not nice feature that you cannot disable", and you can forget about enrolling your own keys as well.

He was there for a brief period. According to Wikipedia he was there from 2022-2026 and seems to have left to create his new company in early 2026.

Explain like I'm five?

Id love to be as angry as you are.