Am I? Then what ‘closing bootloader’ is if not their form of giving permissions? If I understood correctly they would not “help” with specs and we do not know what bootloader capable of. Why? if their goal to keep it open? Let’s see the tendency.
They have put a complete control over IOS devices since the beginning of IOS, including the apps that were not allowed at all. Since then they are trying to bring this into a ‘personal computer’ domain as it seems.
they started slowly but steady to put more and more control over Mac apps,
then they started limiting root access,
Now the bootloader ...
So where they are going ? As I see it the tendency is to close MacOS completely just as IOS unless they face a strong resistance, then they go for ‘as much as they can get’ or ‘as much as they can get away with’ strategy, feeding some ‘calming pills’ on the way that some perhaps are happy to swallow. They have changed things from, “of course it is not our business what you boot” , to “of course, we may allow unsigned kernels .... for now” (if it’s true at all, we still need to see this in reality) Yes it is not as strong as “we will not allow at all”, but for sure it’s their permission now. You may say, oh it’s just as before. No , it’s not, they have taken some of the existing freedom and intend to take more next year possibly. And who knows what their bootloader does? What if it would be controlled remotely ? What if to load some “unsigned kernels” which are called just kernels by the way, they would still require some online check? Who knows? What of the above is not true or incorrect?
They have put a complete control over IOS devices since the beginning of IOS, including the apps that were not allowed at all. Since then they are trying to bring this into a ‘personal computer’ domain as it seems.
they started slowly but steady to put more and more control over Mac apps,
then they started limiting root access,
Now the bootloader ...
So where they are going ? As I see it the tendency is to close MacOS completely just as IOS unless they face a strong resistance, then they go for ‘as much as they can get’ or ‘as much as they can get away with’ strategy, feeding some ‘calming pills’ on the way that some perhaps are happy to swallow. They have changed things from, “of course it is not our business what you boot” , to “of course, we may allow unsigned kernels .... for now” (if it’s true at all, we still need to see this in reality) Yes it is not as strong as “we will not allow at all”, but for sure it’s their permission now. You may say, oh it’s just as before. No , it’s not, they have taken some of the existing freedom and intend to take more next year possibly. And who knows what their bootloader does? What if it would be controlled remotely ? What if to load some “unsigned kernels” which are called just kernels by the way, they would still require some online check? Who knows? What of the above is not true or incorrect?