Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 3rd Nov 2011 19:34 UTC, submitted by lucas_maximus
Permalink for comment 495697
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2008-08-19
I wouldn't regard CNet commentators as an authority on the matter, if I were you. Having read both Bott's article and the various discussions he's talking about, it looks like he's just heard about some controversy, skimmed a few blog posts, and written up a quick and mostly uninformed article.
That blog post you link to is by Matthew Garrett, who's probably the most knowledgeable person in the open-source community when it comes to UEFI booting. He's also the one responsible for most of the noise around "secure boot", precisely because he's done his research.
That said, he does stick to the facts, hence the post you linked to, complaining about others spreading misinformation. As far as I can tell, this fuss is because someone else at Redhat had problems with UEFI, and jumped to the conclusion that it was relating to secure boot. Which can't possibly be the case, as Garrett's latest post points out... no "secure boot" systems are currently on the market...