First it was "secure boot", now it's "boot guard"? It seems that the PC, which was once a <i>very</i> open platform (IBM published schematics and the source code of the BIOS up to the PC/AT), is gradually becoming another locked-down walled-garden ecosystem.<p>The worst part is that the masses are going to think these anti-user measures are <i>helping</i> them, "because security". They'll see only the "prevents hackers" part being advertised and agree wholeheartedly, or even if they realise that it means they won't be able to choose the firmware they run, they'll shrug it off as "I'm basically never going to do that, so why should it matter to me?" The majority have spoken for security over freedom, and lead us down this path, where eventually almost no one will own the computers they use, or be allowed to do anything with them (including write software) except as permitted by the organisations that control them.<p>This is really, <i>really</i> scary. It's quite reminiscent of the dystopia in Stallman's "The Right to Read":<p><a href="https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html</a><p>It won't be easy to turn the situation around, but if anything I believe it will have to start with education - to reverse the brainwashing that companies and governments have propagated, and show people the power they can have when they control their computing devices. It is particularly hard when the majority are barely computer-literate, and there is vested interest in keeping them that way.<p>I don't think the situation has gotten to the point where it's necessary to stockpile older and freer computers, but that could be an option in the future. However, I'm certainly not going to be replacing my Thinkpad X60 with anything else for as long as possible.<p>I think this famous quote really needs to be made more aware of among those preparing to fight against the war on general-purpose computing: "Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither."