08.03.13
Gemini version available ♊︎UEFI a Complication That Almost Nobody Needs
Adding a monopoly layer that nobody asked for
Summary: Another reason to boycott UEFI, which is a headache to many and benefit to almost nobody except Intel and Microsoft
As regular critics of UEFI, especially for its ‘secure’ boot enablement of Microsoft antitrust abuses, it seemed reasonable for us to point out this rant from a UEFI proponent, Dr. Garrett.
“Enable freedom, not lockdown.”“32-bit UEFI,” he rants “Just say what on earth were you thinking, please, no, can’t you find a solution that doesn’t involve me getting tetanus jabs.”
The rant is about shipping of inadequate UEFI implementations, which cause unnecessary problems. Why use UEFI anyway? What are the benefits to most users? Remote network booting? No. It’s just unwanted complications marketed as progress. To most users, less is more. Use Coreboot. Enable freedom, not lockdown. When I pointed this out to the President of the UEFI Forum he did not really have a counterpoint.
Given Microsoft’s strong relationship with the NSA we now know that the NSA can brick hardware with UEFI. Remotely even, provided it also runs Windows. That is a massive risk to tolerate. Boycott UEFI. █
Found circulating in JoinDiaspora
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
Needs Sunlight said,
August 3, 2013 at 8:23 am
The FSF and others warned about restricted boot a long time ago:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot
How easy is it to replace UEFI with Coreboot on new machines? Can it be done at all or has the lock-in gotten too far?
Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:
August 3rd, 2013 at 8:32 am
It’s baked into hardware and it’s self-destructibilie, suggests Samsung’s example. So much for ‘features’…