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
Comments
Needs Sunlight
2013-08-03 13:23:58
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
2013-08-03 13:32:11