Explaining (in Length and Depth) the Damage Matthew Garrett Did to Linux and to GNU/Linux Users
2 hours ago:
Many inappropriate behaviours against us (for merely talking about UEFI 'secure boot') are being reported and relayed to the British authorities (including as recently as 5 hours ago) and we shall continue writing about the subject, no matter how many threats we receive. Or how many get sent to my wife, too. While she's on holiday and mourning death in her family.
See the screen (photo) above. Some people have mysterious issues. We also wrote about that yesterday and last year:
- We Could Dual-Boot Back in the 1990s, Why Has This Become So Difficult?
- Repetition of Last Summer (Microsoft Breaking Dual-Boot Systems)
- Good Reason to Delete Windows, Not Dual-Boot, and Call Out the Microsofters Who Worked to Impose 'Secure' Boot, Undermining Antitrust Complaints
A few hours ago Techrights published "The Mind of the 'Hulk Hogan of UEFI'" (Hogan took billionaires' money to attack a publisher which had exposed him doing objectively bad, immoral things). The concise summary of events shows how criticising UEFI 'secure boot' - before its perpetrators were even mentioned at all - caused us to receive not one but several SLAPPs from Microsofters in America [1, 2, 3], not only targeting myself but also my wife. Does that sound ridiculous? Because it is!
The opening part said, "Matthew Garrett helped Microsoft engage in abusive, monopolistic behaviour, for financial (personal) gain, despite resistance and widespread condemnation from non-Windows users" and one reader said about this that "the first bullet point is vague, is that referring to restricted boot?"
Well, I wrote this for a non-technical person (it was meant to be read by British authorities, whose staff does not even know what "BIOS" means).
But I agree; that first point might merit a lengthy weekend post. It's almost midnight here. So let's expand in more technical terms:
"Matthew Garrett, back then a staff member of Red Hat (before IBM but not before Jim Whitehurst sold out to Steve Ballmer) helped Microsoft shoehorn utter garbage into Linux, the kernel. The founder and maintainer of Linux, Linus Torvalds, responded swiftly and strongly so as to antagonise this Trojan horse of Microsoft. As a result, more staff members of Red Hat started 'brigading' him and Garrett started a campaign of hate against Torvalds, mostly in his Twitter account, but not limited to that. He tried to get the ear of some journalists, his blog aside, and write - or help write - highly negative press articles about Torvalds - and by extension about Linux and all its developers. Garrett would repeat this very same behaviour years later. A lot of what he said can be deemed defamatory, even by American standards of free speech. What Garrett did helped Microsoft actively engage in abusive, monopolistic behaviour, including technical sabotage (disguised as well-meaning security endeavours or 'accidents'). Not only was this predictable; many people warned about it, correctly predicted the outcome, and many took legal action - or initiated formal complaints (relayed to their governments). To make matters worse, Garrett used this incident for a publicity stunt (painting himself as a victim of Torvalds rather than an aggressor or a malicious actor); he moreover did so for financial (personal) gain, if not directly from Microsoft then via proxies, contractors, and partners. And despite resistance and widespread condemnation from non-Windows users, right now (in 2025) we still deal with the consequences of what Garrett did. Millions of people have valid reasons to be angry at Garrett."
Garrett has been diligently trying to "shoot the messenger" for over 13 years, including by stalking and attacking the messenger's family members. This is totally unacceptable. This is the behaviour of a deranged person, trying to settle scores by abuse of process and deliberate lies/perjury. █