The only allowing external booting for non blessed OSs thing isn’t true, you can dual boot any variant of Linux, Windows, etc where drivers exist for the machine.
It’s slightly trickier to install linux because macs are not bog-standard PCs and you have to contend with an EFI boot, but there are prepackaged ISOs out there if you want to install Ubuntu into the internal SSD.
It's not having to deal with EFI, it's secure boot certificates. You can change boot camp settings to allow the microsoft certificate used for windows but not the microsoft certificate used by shim. So you have to completely disable secure boot.
which to be honest makes sense, as secure boot is somewhat tied to OS; it's one of the oddities of a platform closer to a console than a standard PC in that features bridge across the hardware and software.
The real answer here is that if you want a machine that you can self upgrade, run whatever you want on it, tear apart and put back together at will, then Apple is a terrible choice in that regard. Doesn't make them terrible machines, just not machines that meet that kind of use case.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
The real answer is Apple shouldn't have made the decision to exclude the certificate from their firmware.
What exactly are you saying you cannot do here, just so we are clear? That you cannot install windows when secure boot is enabled? Because you totally can do that. Apple won't let you install linux with secure boot on because the number of folks who would want both secure boot and ubuntu is too small a group to justify the effort of validating that OS.
Secure boot is an optional feature that goes above and beyond just encryption, and it basically validates that the OS you are using is "safe" before allowing boot, allows you to disable boot access to external volumes, etc. And it can be easily turned on/off if you want to install something outside of its control.
I run it on my machine because why wouldn't I? Provides an extra layer of security from stuff like USB-based attacks.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
The real answer is Apple shouldn't have made the decision to exclude the certificate from their firmware.
What exactly are you saying you cannot do here, just so we are clear? That you cannot install windows when secure boot is enabled? Because you totally can do that. Apple won't let you install linux with secure boot on because the number of folks who would want both secure boot and ubuntu is too small a group to justify the effort of validating that OS.
Secure boot is an optional feature that goes above and beyond just encryption, and it basically validates that the OS you are using is "safe" before allowing boot, allows you to disable boot access to external volumes, etc. And it can be easily turned on/off if you want to install something outside of its control.
I run it on my machine because why wouldn't I? Provides an extra layer of security from stuff like USB-based attacks.
Secure boot works by only allowing the running of EFI applications that are signed with trusted keys. They included the windows boot loader, they didn't include shim. That's it, that's the reason it doesn't work. If they included it you could run linux and have secure boot. There is no fancy validation of Windows happening, it's just making sure the boot loader is correctly signed.
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
The real answer is Apple shouldn't have made the decision to exclude the certificate from their firmware.
What exactly are you saying you cannot do here, just so we are clear? That you cannot install windows when secure boot is enabled? Because you totally can do that. Apple won't let you install linux with secure boot on because the number of folks who would want both secure boot and ubuntu is too small a group to justify the effort of validating that OS.
Secure boot is an optional feature that goes above and beyond just encryption, and it basically validates that the OS you are using is "safe" before allowing boot, allows you to disable boot access to external volumes, etc. And it can be easily turned on/off if you want to install something outside of its control.
I run it on my machine because why wouldn't I? Provides an extra layer of security from stuff like USB-based attacks.
Secure boot works by only allowing the running of EFI applications that are signed with trusted keys. They included the windows boot loader, they didn't include shim. That's it, that's the reason it doesn't work. If they included it you could run linux and have secure boot. There is no fancy validation of Windows happening, it's just making sure the boot loader is correctly signed.
because shim is inherently insecure; it allows arbitrary execution of pretty much anything on a UEFI platform. It's not entirely surprising that "secure boot" would deny access to that, as that would basically invalidate the entire concept.
If you want to use shim, disable secure boot.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
It allows running applications signed with keys enrolled with it. It is much more secure than no secure boot.
It can be a non-default option just like allowing the windows boot loader. Having that option makes nothing less secure than having the option of disabling secure boot does.
If you have a (Microsoft) bitlockered hard drive and your logic board/TPM chip are toast you're also not getting that data back, unless you have the extremely long recovery/encryption keys.
It's not extremely long. The recovery key is, like, 25-30 numerals.
You are provided with the option to print or save the key when you encrypt the drive.
Yeah but it's not something one could like, memorize or guess.
Fun fact, I once lost all of a user's local data by forgetting to turn bitlocker off before upgrading their BIOS. Whoops.
The difference between apple and microsoft here is you have a choice to turn it on or off, and also, you have the ability to recover if something happens.
Apple says "fuck you" instead.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
+4
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
You can turn it off.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Does turning off secure boot stop the T2 chip from using its internal keys to encrypt the drive?
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Does turning off secure boot stop the T2 chip from using its internal keys to encrypt the drive?
nope, the internal drive is always encrypted at rest, no way around that, which is one of the things that makes the machine by default more secure, but also more or less forces you to maintain backups (which is good behavior anyways).
This is a security > convenience conversation, and yes apple took away your choice on the matter if you use apple stuff, but my own personal thoughts are that making laptop drives inaccessible even with hardware hacking/fuckery if stolen is worth the negatives of having to rely on a backup if something gets hosed.
But it's a consumer choice to buy it or not; Apple is nowhere near a monopoly in any space we are talking about right now and there are lots of computers you can buy that allow you to swap SSDs or run in a less secure fashion.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
On all modern apple devices, you can launch an internet recovery mode from boot using a keyboard command that grabs an image off the internet which has the utilities you need to manage the disk volumes, do an install, etc.
This supercedes the OS volume.
That said, if you cannot even boot at all this is of little use.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
The real answer is Apple shouldn't have made the decision to exclude the certificate from their firmware.
What exactly are you saying you cannot do here, just so we are clear? That you cannot install windows when secure boot is enabled? Because you totally can do that. Apple won't let you install linux with secure boot on because the number of folks who would want both secure boot and ubuntu is too small a group to justify the effort of validating that OS.
Secure boot is an optional feature that goes above and beyond just encryption, and it basically validates that the OS you are using is "safe" before allowing boot, allows you to disable boot access to external volumes, etc. And it can be easily turned on/off if you want to install something outside of its control.
I run it on my machine because why wouldn't I? Provides an extra layer of security from stuff like USB-based attacks.
The bolded is a self fulfilling prophecy. Apple won't let you install linux with secure boot because the number of users who want both is too small, but the number of users that want both is small because you can't install linux with secure boot.
I think we're losing the thread here by following the Mac-Linux tangent. The real issue is the business model of forced obsolescence and the way companies attempt to control your electronic devices after you've "bought" them. What Apple and other companies are doing is treating their hardware as they do software, so that you're effectively licensing a physical device. They do this by tying the device very strongly to their software.
Remember when Microsoft went through an antitrust lawsuit in the late 90's? They eventually won that lawsuit, the result of which is the dominance of Apple and other companies. We as a society need to revisit these rulings and start breaking down the power of these massive corporations before they are completely able to subvert democracy.
+12
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
I think we're losing the thread here by following the Mac-Linux tangent. The real issue is the business model of forced obsolescence and the way companies attempt to control your electronic devices after you've "bought" them. What Apple and other companies are doing is treating their hardware as they do software, so that you're effectively licensing a physical device. They do this by tying the device very strongly to their software.
Remember when Microsoft went through an antitrust lawsuit in the late 90's? They eventually won that lawsuit, the result of which is the dominance of Apple and other companies. We as a society need to revisit these rulings and start breaking down the power of these massive corporations before they are completely able to subvert democracy.
Conversely, there isn't anything inherently wrong with hardware and software being built as a single machine designed to work better because they were built with each other in mind.
A playstation 4, a nintendo switch, and an iPad are modern examples of easy to use, well-loved devices where the very idea of running a different OS or swapping out the processor doesn't really make a bunch of sense.
And I don't think there is a problem with a world where devices can be locked down like this, so long as they aren't the only option and are leveraging that locked down device to bilk its trapped audience.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I think we're losing the thread here by following the Mac-Linux tangent. The real issue is the business model of forced obsolescence and the way companies attempt to control your electronic devices after you've "bought" them. What Apple and other companies are doing is treating their hardware as they do software, so that you're effectively licensing a physical device. They do this by tying the device very strongly to their software.
Remember when Microsoft went through an antitrust lawsuit in the late 90's? They eventually won that lawsuit, the result of which is the dominance of Apple and other companies. We as a society need to revisit these rulings and start breaking down the power of these massive corporations before they are completely able to subvert democracy.
Conversely, there isn't anything inherently wrong with hardware and software being built as a single machine designed to work better because they were built with each other in mind.
A playstation 4, a nintendo switch, and an iPad are modern examples of easy to use, well-loved devices where the very idea of running a different OS or swapping out the processor doesn't really make a bunch of sense.
And I don't think there is a problem with a world where devices can be locked down like this, so long as they aren't the only option and are leveraging that locked down device to bilk its trapped audience.
I should be able to take my device to my choice of repair shoo, who need not have any affiliation to the company that made the device.
For consoles, this is still mostly ths case iirc. For one, they have sensible assembly with just screws (even if unusual pain in the ass ones).
I think we're losing the thread here by following the Mac-Linux tangent. The real issue is the business model of forced obsolescence and the way companies attempt to control your electronic devices after you've "bought" them. What Apple and other companies are doing is treating their hardware as they do software, so that you're effectively licensing a physical device. They do this by tying the device very strongly to their software.
Remember when Microsoft went through an antitrust lawsuit in the late 90's? They eventually won that lawsuit, the result of which is the dominance of Apple and other companies. We as a society need to revisit these rulings and start breaking down the power of these massive corporations before they are completely able to subvert democracy.
Conversely, there isn't anything inherently wrong with hardware and software being built as a single machine designed to work better because they were built with each other in mind.
A playstation 4, a nintendo switch, and an iPad are modern examples of easy to use, well-loved devices where the very idea of running a different OS or swapping out the processor doesn't really make a bunch of sense.
And I don't think there is a problem with a world where devices can be locked down like this, so long as they aren't the only option and are leveraging that locked down device to bilk its trapped audience.
I should be able to take my device to my choice of repair shoo, who need not have any affiliation to the company that made the device.
For consoles, this is still mostly ths case iirc. For one, they have sensible assembly with just screws (even if unusual pain in the ass ones).
The Xbox One (the smaller revised one) and the XB1X are surprising friendly for takedown purposes, to the point of labeling the separate modules and numbering them (in order to which they'd need to be replaced if taken out). So, "PWR" is labeled "02" and "DISC" is labeled "03".
Pretty useful for replacement/repair jobs, apparently. As far as consoles go. There's no other reason, including MS' own fabrication process, to visibly label them.
+10
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
I think we're losing the thread here by following the Mac-Linux tangent. The real issue is the business model of forced obsolescence and the way companies attempt to control your electronic devices after you've "bought" them. What Apple and other companies are doing is treating their hardware as they do software, so that you're effectively licensing a physical device. They do this by tying the device very strongly to their software.
Remember when Microsoft went through an antitrust lawsuit in the late 90's? They eventually won that lawsuit, the result of which is the dominance of Apple and other companies. We as a society need to revisit these rulings and start breaking down the power of these massive corporations before they are completely able to subvert democracy.
Conversely, there isn't anything inherently wrong with hardware and software being built as a single machine designed to work better because they were built with each other in mind.
A playstation 4, a nintendo switch, and an iPad are modern examples of easy to use, well-loved devices where the very idea of running a different OS or swapping out the processor doesn't really make a bunch of sense.
And I don't think there is a problem with a world where devices can be locked down like this, so long as they aren't the only option and are leveraging that locked down device to bilk its trapped audience.
I should be able to take my device to my choice of repair shoo, who need not have any affiliation to the company that made the device.
For consoles, this is still mostly ths case iirc. For one, they have sensible assembly with just screws (even if unusual pain in the ass ones).
The Xbox One (the smaller revised one) and the XB1X are surprising friendly for takedown purposes, to the point of labeling the separate modules and numbering them (in order to which they'd need to be replaced if taken out). So, "PWR" is labeled "02" and "DISC" is labeled "03".
Pretty useful for replacement/repair jobs, apparently. As far as consoles go. There's no other reason, including MS' own fabrication process, to visibly label them.
Repairing the hardware I am fine with 3rd parties being able to do, so long as providing the parts doesn't risk the chain of security. So, like, logic boards could be an apple-only part that has to be installed by someone certified, but the rest of the machine, casing, etc. should be open to 3rd party replacements and repairs.
And I don't think it should be illegal for aftermarket parts whatsoever; that is a bridge way too far, especially parts no longer being made... but the company should be under zero obligation to support you if you installed a 3rd party thing. You have decided to take support and maintenance into your own hands, have fun.
And if someone manages to hack past the firmware and jailbreak/root/etc their console or iPad and do stuff on it, there should be no legal penalty, but the company should have zero obligation to support anything you have done at that point; you have effectively zeroed out the support / resale value of the device if you get caught.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Does turning off secure boot stop the T2 chip from using its internal keys to encrypt the drive?
No.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
edited January 2019
And remember, the iMacs VESA mount sold on their site, despite being Apple branded, is absolutely not supported and they give no indication of that anywhere.
When even "official" accessories being supported is a crapshoot, you've absolutely gone too far.
jungleroomx on
+1
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
And remember, the iMacs VESA mount sold on their site, despite being Apple branded, is absolutely not supported and they give no indication of that anywhere.
When even "official" accessories being supported is a crapshoot, you've absolutely gone too far.
The vesa mount works with the iMac Pro. Its labelled for use with the iMac Pro.
If you want a VESA iMac, it is a config option at purchase.
that linked article is talking about one guy's experience in which he broke his vesa mount because the screws were not meant to be used multiple times, apple owned up to not making that part clear and gave the dude a whole new computer, and googling showed none of what you are talking about regarding it breaking apple monitors several times, since this isn't a device used for apple monitors and has only been on the market for less than a year and is intended only for their iMac Pro.
Right to repair is an important issue and one with exploring, but I seriously don't get why people need to invent shit about apple when there are plenty of valid things you can ding them for on this topic.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
And remember, the iMacs VESA mount sold on their site, despite being Apple branded, is absolutely not supported and they give no indication of that anywhere.
When even "official" accessories being supported is a crapshoot, you've absolutely gone too far.
The vesa mount works with the iMac Pro. Its labelled for use with the iMac Pro.
If you want a VESA iMac, it is a config option at purchase.
What does any of this have to do with right to repair?
It's sold, but if it breaks it's not considered an Apple product and not covered under Apple Care, as one YouTuber found out the hard way.
You make it sound like they immediately just tossed him a new iMac. No. That's absolutely not what happened.
And it's relevant because part of right to repair is how companies honor warranty work.
jungleroomx on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I would put hardware mounting screws designed to break when used more than once in the same category as fragile ribbon cables designed to break when the computer case is cracked open.
I would put hardware mounting screws designed to break when used more than once in the same category as fragile ribbon cables designed to break when the computer case is cracked open.
As per the article the accurate statement is that they are designed to break before the thread in the hole. Which is a sensible design decision.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
I think we're losing the thread here by following the Mac-Linux tangent. The real issue is the business model of forced obsolescence and the way companies attempt to control your electronic devices after you've "bought" them. What Apple and other companies are doing is treating their hardware as they do software, so that you're effectively licensing a physical device. They do this by tying the device very strongly to their software.
Remember when Microsoft went through an antitrust lawsuit in the late 90's? They eventually won that lawsuit, the result of which is the dominance of Apple and other companies. We as a society need to revisit these rulings and start breaking down the power of these massive corporations before they are completely able to subvert democracy.
Conversely, there isn't anything inherently wrong with hardware and software being built as a single machine designed to work better because they were built with each other in mind.
A playstation 4, a nintendo switch, and an iPad are modern examples of easy to use, well-loved devices where the very idea of running a different OS or swapping out the processor doesn't really make a bunch of sense.
And I don't think there is a problem with a world where devices can be locked down like this, so long as they aren't the only option and are leveraging that locked down device to bilk its trapped audience.
I should be able to take my device to my choice of repair shoo, who need not have any affiliation to the company that made the device.
For consoles, this is still mostly ths case iirc. For one, they have sensible assembly with just screws (even if unusual pain in the ass ones).
The Xbox One (the smaller revised one) and the XB1X are surprising friendly for takedown purposes, to the point of labeling the separate modules and numbering them (in order to which they'd need to be replaced if taken out). So, "PWR" is labeled "02" and "DISC" is labeled "03".
Pretty useful for replacement/repair jobs, apparently. As far as consoles go. There's no other reason, including MS' own fabrication process, to visibly label them.
I have to say I'm pretty pleased with the repairability of XBox hardware. Over the years I've replaced the CD drive in my original X1, converted the Kinect to USB3.0 for use with an X1X, and swapped logic boards in a controller. All fairly straightforward DIY work.
Repairing the hardware I am fine with 3rd parties being able to do, so long as providing the parts doesn't risk the chain of security. So, like, logic boards could be an apple-only part that has to be installed by someone certified, but the rest of the machine, casing, etc. should be open to 3rd party replacements and repairs.
You're creating a loophole that companies can and will exploit. They could, for example, patent a battery interface, claim the battery interface is required for security. Because it's proprietary and is part of the security chain, you now can't buy a replacement battery for your device from anyone but the company.
And I don't think it should be illegal for aftermarket parts whatsoever; that is a bridge way too far, especially parts no longer being made... but the company should be under zero obligation to support you if you installed a 3rd party thing. You have decided to take support and maintenance into your own hands, have fun.
I strongly disagree with this "buyer beware" approach. If Apple stops making batteries for the iPhone 3 or 6S or whatever thus forcing the consumer to go to aftermarket for solutions to continue using the product they purchased, Apple shouldn't be able to say "Sorry, we no longer will support your iPhone in any way."
A somewhat reasonable compromise on this situation would be to void Apple's responsibility to any issues that occur due to the battery, but they shouldn't get off the hook for everything.
And a major issue with this approach is that it is a clear path to forced obsolescence. Apple and other phone companies use batteries that lose a significant portion of their ability to retain a charge after only two years. Power consumption in phones is going up, which will result in both batteries with a shorter single charge and with a reduced lifespan. This is by design, and by not supporting 1st party battery replacements these companies are forcing users to either go to aftermarket for solutions and risk bricking their device, or to upgrade to a new expensive device.
Both my mother and step father recently upgraded their iPhones, and their biggest praise of the new iPhone was how long the battery lasted compared to their two year old models. For the non-tech savvy individuals, this is a selling point.
And if someone manages to hack past the firmware and jailbreak/root/etc their console or iPad and do stuff on it, there should be no legal penalty, but the company should have zero obligation to support anything you have done at that point; you have effectively zeroed out the support / resale value of the device if you get caught.
Just look at the terminology that the tech industry has popularized. We don't unlock our phone so we can run the OS we want or use our preferred cell service provider, we "jailbreak" it. Why jailbreak? Because "jailbreak" has strong connotations of being something difficult to accomplish, illegal, and unsavory.
Again, I think a reasonable compromise would be that the device manufacturer would no longer be obligated to support any software used on the device in this situation, but that shouldn't absolve them of responsibility for the hardware. The storage should store, the display should display, and if a part fails due to a manufacturing defect or while under warranty then the manufacturer should fix it.
I would put hardware mounting screws designed to break when used more than once in the same category as fragile ribbon cables designed to break when the computer case is cracked open.
As per the article the accurate statement is that they are designed to break before the thread in the hole. Which is a sensible design decision.
yes, it is.
So is using a material for the socket and its mount that you can use something stronger than zinc screws.
They moistly come out at night, moistly.
+9
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I would put hardware mounting screws designed to break when used more than once in the same category as fragile ribbon cables designed to break when the computer case is cracked open.
As per the article the accurate statement is that they are designed to break before the thread in the hole. Which is a sensible design decision.
yes, it is.
So is using a material for the socket and its mount that you can use something stronger than zinc screws.
Yes.
I work with a lot of hardware these days, and I've become quite intimately familiar with VESA mounting and innumerable hardware manufacturers, both ones that make consumer-level hardware (Dell, Lenovo, Apple) and ones that make commercial hardware (ELO, Dynascan, etc)
I've never, ever seen a Vesa mount designed to be used only once then have hardware failures. VESA mounts are incredibly simple things that simply adhere to basic measurement standards. We've taken things off, remounted hardware (especially in commercial settings, the ability to remove and remount is crucial), and the kicker? Most of those commercial grade VESA mounts cost less than it costs to mount an iMac.
"Designed to break before the thread in the hole" is something that is really flicking my gag reflex right now.
Typically this is why we use steel, so things like screws and screw threads don't break. This is not a problem in the modern world except when it's by design.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
+22
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Typically this is why we use steel, so things like screws and screw threads don't break. This is not a problem in the modern world except when it's by design.
you use a softer metal than the metal of the socket you are screwing into, for all the reasons detailed in the article linked. Because steel breaking off in steel completely ruins the socket forever, whereas you can dig zinc out if it breaks off.
But there are many alloys between zinc and steel that they could have used; they probably used zinc because they use zinc for other screws that perform a similar purpose; they are just in areas less likely to be user serviced so less likely to have caused an issue like this.
They didn't pick zinc screws on a 70 dollar accessory for an 18,000 dollar computer to fuck over the end user or make it hard to repair the thing. That's just silly. They used zinc because they use zinc elsewhere, and they will probably quietly replace it with a new alloy in later revisions.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Typically this is why we use steel, so things like screws and screw threads don't break. This is not a problem in the modern world except when it's by design.
you use a softer metal than the metal of the socket you are screwing into, for all the reasons detailed in the article linked. Because steel breaking off in steel completely ruins the socket forever, whereas you can dig zinc out if it breaks off.
But there are many alloys between zinc and steel that they could have used; they probably used zinc because they use zinc for other screws that perform a similar purpose; they are just in areas less likely to be user serviced so less likely to have caused an issue like this.
They didn't pick zinc screws on a 70 dollar accessory for an 18,000 dollar computer to fuck over the end user or make it hard to repair the thing. That's just silly. They used zinc because they use zinc elsewhere, and they will probably quietly replace it with a new alloy in later revisions.
Yes in my 25 years dealing with computers since I was a wee lad, I've had a grand total of 0 screw threads breaking or damaging a socket, ever.
There are still several alternatives to zinc. The reason they picked it, you're right, had literally nothing to do with repairs. It was cost.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
+18
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Typically this is why we use steel, so things like screws and screw threads don't break. This is not a problem in the modern world except when it's by design.
you use a softer metal than the metal of the socket you are screwing into, for all the reasons detailed in the article linked. Because steel breaking off in steel completely ruins the socket forever, whereas you can dig zinc out if it breaks off.
But there are many alloys between zinc and steel that they could have used; they probably used zinc because they use zinc for other screws that perform a similar purpose; they are just in areas less likely to be user serviced so less likely to have caused an issue like this.
They didn't pick zinc screws on a 70 dollar accessory for an 18,000 dollar computer to fuck over the end user or make it hard to repair the thing. That's just silly. They used zinc because they use zinc elsewhere, and they will probably quietly replace it with a new alloy in later revisions.
Yes in my 25 years dealing with computers since I was a wee lad, I've had a grand total of 0 screw threads breaking or damaging a socket, ever.
There are still several alternatives to zinc. The reason they picked it, you're right, had literally nothing to do with repairs. It was cost.
Just deployed well over 1,000 screens to various locations for a client and not a single mishap with the VESA mounts.
So I dunno, it seems like they cheaped the fuck out in the worst possible place.
Just for numbers sake, I work with about 45,000 terminals/kiosks/displays and roughly half of them are VESA mounted.
I don't think there's ever been a screwhole emergency on any of them.
I would put hardware mounting screws designed to break when used more than once in the same category as fragile ribbon cables designed to break when the computer case is cracked open.
As per the article the accurate statement is that they are designed to break before the thread in the hole. Which is a sensible design decision.
A sensible design is to have a screw or bolt fail prior to the part it is being screwed or bolted into. A nonsensical design is to have a screw or bolt designed to fail after a single use.
I would put hardware mounting screws designed to break when used more than once in the same category as fragile ribbon cables designed to break when the computer case is cracked open.
As per the article the accurate statement is that they are designed to break before the thread in the hole. Which is a sensible design decision.
A sensible design is to have a screw or bolt fail prior to the part it is being screwed or bolted into. A nonsensical design is to have a screw or bolt designed to fail after a single use.
Citation that it is designed to fail after a single use and not just shoddy enough that there is a good chance of it failing after a single use?
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I would put hardware mounting screws designed to break when used more than once in the same category as fragile ribbon cables designed to break when the computer case is cracked open.
As per the article the accurate statement is that they are designed to break before the thread in the hole. Which is a sensible design decision.
A sensible design is to have a screw or bolt fail prior to the part it is being screwed or bolted into. A nonsensical design is to have a screw or bolt designed to fail after a single use.
Citation that it is designed to fail after a single use and not just shoddy enough that there is a good chance of it failing after a single use?
I would put hardware mounting screws designed to break when used more than once in the same category as fragile ribbon cables designed to break when the computer case is cracked open.
As per the article the accurate statement is that they are designed to break before the thread in the hole. Which is a sensible design decision.
A sensible design is to have a screw or bolt fail prior to the part it is being screwed or bolted into. A nonsensical design is to have a screw or bolt designed to fail after a single use.
Citation that it is designed to fail after a single use and not just shoddy enough that there is a good chance of it failing after a single use?
Practical difference being?
If it supports a tend of anti-consumer actions, or if it supports a trend of shoddy design and usage low quality materials.
Posts
which to be honest makes sense, as secure boot is somewhat tied to OS; it's one of the oddities of a platform closer to a console than a standard PC in that features bridge across the hardware and software.
The real answer here is that if you want a machine that you can self upgrade, run whatever you want on it, tear apart and put back together at will, then Apple is a terrible choice in that regard. Doesn't make them terrible machines, just not machines that meet that kind of use case.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
What exactly are you saying you cannot do here, just so we are clear? That you cannot install windows when secure boot is enabled? Because you totally can do that. Apple won't let you install linux with secure boot on because the number of folks who would want both secure boot and ubuntu is too small a group to justify the effort of validating that OS.
Secure boot is an optional feature that goes above and beyond just encryption, and it basically validates that the OS you are using is "safe" before allowing boot, allows you to disable boot access to external volumes, etc. And it can be easily turned on/off if you want to install something outside of its control.
I run it on my machine because why wouldn't I? Provides an extra layer of security from stuff like USB-based attacks.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Secure boot works by only allowing the running of EFI applications that are signed with trusted keys. They included the windows boot loader, they didn't include shim. That's it, that's the reason it doesn't work. If they included it you could run linux and have secure boot. There is no fancy validation of Windows happening, it's just making sure the boot loader is correctly signed.
because shim is inherently insecure; it allows arbitrary execution of pretty much anything on a UEFI platform. It's not entirely surprising that "secure boot" would deny access to that, as that would basically invalidate the entire concept.
If you want to use shim, disable secure boot.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
It can be a non-default option just like allowing the windows boot loader. Having that option makes nothing less secure than having the option of disabling secure boot does.
The difference between apple and microsoft here is you have a choice to turn it on or off, and also, you have the ability to recover if something happens.
Apple says "fuck you" instead.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Can you turn it off on iphones or any of the i* devices?
Can I turn it off, after a drive issue?
The thing I read says you can do it in recovery mode, which I remember being like linux single user mode.
Do I have to get to an OS to disable it, or could I do it through a BIOS firmware UI, like every other computing device?
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
nope, the internal drive is always encrypted at rest, no way around that, which is one of the things that makes the machine by default more secure, but also more or less forces you to maintain backups (which is good behavior anyways).
This is a security > convenience conversation, and yes apple took away your choice on the matter if you use apple stuff, but my own personal thoughts are that making laptop drives inaccessible even with hardware hacking/fuckery if stolen is worth the negatives of having to rely on a backup if something gets hosed.
But it's a consumer choice to buy it or not; Apple is nowhere near a monopoly in any space we are talking about right now and there are lots of computers you can buy that allow you to swap SSDs or run in a less secure fashion.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
This supercedes the OS volume.
That said, if you cannot even boot at all this is of little use.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
The bolded is a self fulfilling prophecy. Apple won't let you install linux with secure boot because the number of users who want both is too small, but the number of users that want both is small because you can't install linux with secure boot.
Remember when Microsoft went through an antitrust lawsuit in the late 90's? They eventually won that lawsuit, the result of which is the dominance of Apple and other companies. We as a society need to revisit these rulings and start breaking down the power of these massive corporations before they are completely able to subvert democracy.
Conversely, there isn't anything inherently wrong with hardware and software being built as a single machine designed to work better because they were built with each other in mind.
A playstation 4, a nintendo switch, and an iPad are modern examples of easy to use, well-loved devices where the very idea of running a different OS or swapping out the processor doesn't really make a bunch of sense.
And I don't think there is a problem with a world where devices can be locked down like this, so long as they aren't the only option and are leveraging that locked down device to bilk its trapped audience.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I should be able to take my device to my choice of repair shoo, who need not have any affiliation to the company that made the device.
For consoles, this is still mostly ths case iirc. For one, they have sensible assembly with just screws (even if unusual pain in the ass ones).
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
The Xbox One (the smaller revised one) and the XB1X are surprising friendly for takedown purposes, to the point of labeling the separate modules and numbering them (in order to which they'd need to be replaced if taken out). So, "PWR" is labeled "02" and "DISC" is labeled "03".
Pretty useful for replacement/repair jobs, apparently. As far as consoles go. There's no other reason, including MS' own fabrication process, to visibly label them.
Repairing the hardware I am fine with 3rd parties being able to do, so long as providing the parts doesn't risk the chain of security. So, like, logic boards could be an apple-only part that has to be installed by someone certified, but the rest of the machine, casing, etc. should be open to 3rd party replacements and repairs.
And I don't think it should be illegal for aftermarket parts whatsoever; that is a bridge way too far, especially parts no longer being made... but the company should be under zero obligation to support you if you installed a 3rd party thing. You have decided to take support and maintenance into your own hands, have fun.
And if someone manages to hack past the firmware and jailbreak/root/etc their console or iPad and do stuff on it, there should be no legal penalty, but the company should have zero obligation to support anything you have done at that point; you have effectively zeroed out the support / resale value of the device if you get caught.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
No.
When even "official" accessories being supported is a crapshoot, you've absolutely gone too far.
The vesa mount works with the iMac Pro. Its labelled for use with the iMac Pro.
If you want a VESA iMac, it is a config option at purchase.
https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac-vesa/27-inch
What does any of this have to do with right to repair?
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That's about all I know
that linked article is talking about one guy's experience in which he broke his vesa mount because the screws were not meant to be used multiple times, apple owned up to not making that part clear and gave the dude a whole new computer, and googling showed none of what you are talking about regarding it breaking apple monitors several times, since this isn't a device used for apple monitors and has only been on the market for less than a year and is intended only for their iMac Pro.
Right to repair is an important issue and one with exploring, but I seriously don't get why people need to invent shit about apple when there are plenty of valid things you can ding them for on this topic.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
It's sold, but if it breaks it's not considered an Apple product and not covered under Apple Care, as one YouTuber found out the hard way.
You make it sound like they immediately just tossed him a new iMac. No. That's absolutely not what happened.
And it's relevant because part of right to repair is how companies honor warranty work.
As per the article the accurate statement is that they are designed to break before the thread in the hole. Which is a sensible design decision.
I have to say I'm pretty pleased with the repairability of XBox hardware. Over the years I've replaced the CD drive in my original X1, converted the Kinect to USB3.0 for use with an X1X, and swapped logic boards in a controller. All fairly straightforward DIY work.
You can't give someone a pirate ship in one game, and then take it back in the next game. It's rude.
You're creating a loophole that companies can and will exploit. They could, for example, patent a battery interface, claim the battery interface is required for security. Because it's proprietary and is part of the security chain, you now can't buy a replacement battery for your device from anyone but the company.
I strongly disagree with this "buyer beware" approach. If Apple stops making batteries for the iPhone 3 or 6S or whatever thus forcing the consumer to go to aftermarket for solutions to continue using the product they purchased, Apple shouldn't be able to say "Sorry, we no longer will support your iPhone in any way."
A somewhat reasonable compromise on this situation would be to void Apple's responsibility to any issues that occur due to the battery, but they shouldn't get off the hook for everything.
And a major issue with this approach is that it is a clear path to forced obsolescence. Apple and other phone companies use batteries that lose a significant portion of their ability to retain a charge after only two years. Power consumption in phones is going up, which will result in both batteries with a shorter single charge and with a reduced lifespan. This is by design, and by not supporting 1st party battery replacements these companies are forcing users to either go to aftermarket for solutions and risk bricking their device, or to upgrade to a new expensive device.
Both my mother and step father recently upgraded their iPhones, and their biggest praise of the new iPhone was how long the battery lasted compared to their two year old models. For the non-tech savvy individuals, this is a selling point.
Just look at the terminology that the tech industry has popularized. We don't unlock our phone so we can run the OS we want or use our preferred cell service provider, we "jailbreak" it. Why jailbreak? Because "jailbreak" has strong connotations of being something difficult to accomplish, illegal, and unsavory.
Again, I think a reasonable compromise would be that the device manufacturer would no longer be obligated to support any software used on the device in this situation, but that shouldn't absolve them of responsibility for the hardware. The storage should store, the display should display, and if a part fails due to a manufacturing defect or while under warranty then the manufacturer should fix it.
yes, it is.
So is using a material for the socket and its mount that you can use something stronger than zinc screws.
Yes.
I work with a lot of hardware these days, and I've become quite intimately familiar with VESA mounting and innumerable hardware manufacturers, both ones that make consumer-level hardware (Dell, Lenovo, Apple) and ones that make commercial hardware (ELO, Dynascan, etc)
I've never, ever seen a Vesa mount designed to be used only once then have hardware failures. VESA mounts are incredibly simple things that simply adhere to basic measurement standards. We've taken things off, remounted hardware (especially in commercial settings, the ability to remove and remount is crucial), and the kicker? Most of those commercial grade VESA mounts cost less than it costs to mount an iMac.
"Designed to break before the thread in the hole" is something that is really flicking my gag reflex right now.
you use a softer metal than the metal of the socket you are screwing into, for all the reasons detailed in the article linked. Because steel breaking off in steel completely ruins the socket forever, whereas you can dig zinc out if it breaks off.
But there are many alloys between zinc and steel that they could have used; they probably used zinc because they use zinc for other screws that perform a similar purpose; they are just in areas less likely to be user serviced so less likely to have caused an issue like this.
They didn't pick zinc screws on a 70 dollar accessory for an 18,000 dollar computer to fuck over the end user or make it hard to repair the thing. That's just silly. They used zinc because they use zinc elsewhere, and they will probably quietly replace it with a new alloy in later revisions.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Yes in my 25 years dealing with computers since I was a wee lad, I've had a grand total of 0 screw threads breaking or damaging a socket, ever.
There are still several alternatives to zinc. The reason they picked it, you're right, had literally nothing to do with repairs. It was cost.
Just deployed well over 1,000 screens to various locations for a client and not a single mishap with the VESA mounts.
So I dunno, it seems like they cheaped the fuck out in the worst possible place.
Just for numbers sake, I work with about 45,000 terminals/kiosks/displays and roughly half of them are VESA mounted.
I don't think there's ever been a screwhole emergency on any of them.
A sensible design is to have a screw or bolt fail prior to the part it is being screwed or bolted into. A nonsensical design is to have a screw or bolt designed to fail after a single use.
Citation that it is designed to fail after a single use and not just shoddy enough that there is a good chance of it failing after a single use?
Practical difference being?
If it supports a tend of anti-consumer actions, or if it supports a trend of shoddy design and usage low quality materials.