Basically the title

  • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
    0·
    1 year ago

    The 90’s? Locked bootloaders would’ve meant people woukdve simply bought different machines without a locked bootloader.

    See the IBM/Phoenix BIOS war - it’s essentially the same thing. IBM didn’t want to license their BIOS to everyone, so Phoenix reverse engineered it. If I remember right, IBM was trying to lock everyone to using their OS.

  • UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world
    0·
    1 year ago

    I think you’re forgetting where Linux was the most successful by far: Servers and Android. Server guys do what they want, if you tell them they can only use software you allow them to, they will laugh at you and buy their data center elsewhere. Android has had locked bootloaders forever (I actually think even my very first phone had one).

    So maybe development would have been harder? I mean, we don’t have looked bootloaders on desktop even today, not really locked at least, so it’s hard to tell. Linux’s main audience would not have cared I think.

    • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
      0·
      1 year ago

      Early Android (circa 2009) didn’t have locked bootloaders.

      Google wanted people to experiment, which was basically free research for them. Pixel’s today are unlocked when purchased from Google.

      Even my earliest Verizon phones weren’t bootloader locked - they didn’t start doing that for a few years (my last Verizon phone in 2012 wasn’t bootloader locked). And Verizon is arguably the worst vendor when it comes to bootloader locked phones.

      • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        Browser too, and the whole activeX, and DirectX api system to practically force windows only development.

          • Mactan@lemmy.ml
            1·
            1 year ago

            for the millionth time they get to stand on the shoulders on all the wine development that came before it. and now we have to reckon with the bullshit of proton patches that never go upstream to make wine better for all