| 25 Jul 2021 |
 hexa |
UEFI, Secure Boot capable
| 19:51:28 |
| hexa | *
UEFI, Secure Boot capable
| 19:51:32 |
| hexa | vs https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/windows-10-system-requirements-6d4e9a79-66bf-7950-467c-795cf0386715 | 19:51:43 |
| hexa | * hs ttps://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/windows-10-specifications | 19:52:03 |
| hexa | * vs https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/windows-10-specifications | 19:52:11 |
| hexa | so in win10 it was a feature-specific requirement, in win11 it looks to be a requirement | 19:52:51 |
 @grahamc:nixos.org | So, just needs to be capable. Fud then | 20:44:39 |
 nixinator | In reply to @grahamc:nixos.org
So, just needs to be capable. Fud then gotta love the fud........'loveeeee the fuuuuuuuud'. | 22:12:20 |
| 26 Jul 2021 |
|  Dan joined the room. | 02:56:44 |
| hexa | https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpujul2021.html | 17:49:50 |
| hexa | (update mysql >8.0.25) | 17:50:04 |
| hexa | and aspell https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-25051 | 17:53:42 |
| 28 Jul 2021 |
 julianst | In reply to @grahamc:nixos.org
Given Windows 11 has it as a requirement, any operating system which doesn't support it at all can't boot. Not without reconfiguring your BIOS at every reboot, at any rate, which I don't think many people are going to do. Personally I've been running an indev version of 11, and...
anyone have sources to back this up? sounds like unsubstantiated FUD to me
I'm not sure where the misinformation comes from. If Windows 11 mandates a TPM 2.0 that has no impact on anyone. It doesn't mean that Secure Boot cannot be disabled anymore | 12:37:34 |
 philipp | In reply to @js:ukvly.org
I'm not sure where the misinformation comes from. If Windows 11 mandates a TPM 2.0 that has no impact on anyone. It doesn't mean that Secure Boot cannot be disabled anymore There has been fud about this for every windows release since at least windows 7, I wouldn't worry about it for now. There is also antitrust regulations in place for things like this. | 12:43:55 |
|  stick changed their display name from prusnak to stick. | 15:09:42 |
 toonn | Requiring certain hardware for your OS doesn't sound at all like antitrust to me? | 19:34:34 |
| toonn | It's like not supporting your OS on ARM. | 19:34:54 |
 Roos | I'd argue things change when you're OS is very much used and you artificially limit compatibility. | 19:35:45 |
| toonn | I mean, Apple's clear prior art. | 19:37:16 |
| Roos | An argument could be made about compelling people to replace perfectly working hardware with new one. | 19:37:18 |
| toonn | Some motherboards do allow adding a TPM. | 19:37:43 |
| toonn | I think it only becomes antitrust if they were in cahoots with hardware companies. | 19:38:05 |
| toonn | Removing headphone jacks from phones is slightly similar. | 19:44:08 |
 Arminio Genevino | That is just terrible. I love Apple hardware, but having to use a USB-C to headphone adapter is just stupid. I realize those jacks broke easily, but meh. | 19:45:41 |
| nixinator | In reply to @genevino:matrix.org
That is just terrible. I love Apple hardware, but having to use a USB-C to headphone adapter is just stupid. I realize those jacks broke easily, but meh. have you thought about upgrading the macbook wheel? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BnLbv6QYcA | 23:11:23 |
| 29 Jul 2021 |
| stick changed their display name from stick to stick2. | 16:25:15 |
| stick changed their display name from stick2 to stick. | 16:25:55 |
| 30 Jul 2021 |
| stick changed their display name from stick to stick3. | 10:32:55 |
| stick changed their display name from stick3 to stick. | 10:33:02 |
| stick changed their display name from stick to stick[m]. | 10:35:18 |
