Dangerous Concessions: Red Hat, Fedora and the Secure Boot Shocker

"Big Linux company happily pays $99-tax and gladly lets M$ handle the problem of the desktop consumer OS market; prefers to sell cloud computer storage and headless server maintenance contracts to Fortune 500 companies"

Where is your wildly inaccurate quote from?

Quoting:"Big Linux company happily pays $99-tax and gladly lets M$ handle the problem of the desktop consumer OS market; prefers to sell cloud computer storage and headless server maintenance contracts to Fortune 500 companies"

While this suggested headline may or may not be "wildly inaccurate", most headlines appear to be much shorter even with their subtitles. And yet shorter headlines can and do effect similar sentiments as this particular quote using solely their more concise main titles. Note that the original LinuxInsider piece has a concise main title of precisely ten words, rather than the above headline suggestion 3.5 times as verbose.

@Caitlyn Martin - the material was a suggested headline, not a quote.

Please advise - which part is wild, and which part is inaccurate? How many "self-support" $49 desktop subscriptions do you think RH sold last year? Zero? Five hundred? Five thousand?

M$ sells 75-80 million copies of Windows per quarter. Am I wrong? If I'm wrong, then bear with me. I think we can agree that their desktop sales are measured in many millions per year.

Why does the self-proclaimed "World's Open Source Leader" not even try to compete for this market? Because it's not where their bread is buttered. Don't expect any Linux vendor to put up a big fight over laptop and desktop boot loaders - consumer PC's pre-loaded with M$ "Metro" aren't going to get a $49 version of RH loaded on them, for the most part. There's no money there.

Quoting: http://www.mail-archive.com/misc@openbsd.org/msg112931.html

Try to buy systems that don't rely on UEFI. In the next few years, prepare to buy systems and find out they require UEFI, and then demand a refund. Prepare for it to get even worse than that.

If you buy a UEFI-capable system today, you are giving power to the people who will (in the future) make UEFI-only systems which are incapable of running OpenBSD.

UEFI arrived with all sorts of promises of making machines better, but is being turned into something completely nefarious.

It took some time, but that thread finally veered into usefulness (how to boot large drives). I was hoping Theo, or anyone, had something useful to say about the alleged perils of UEFI, but they're sadly shy of details. I just wrote up my own analysis of UEFI and Secure Boot for Linux.com, which should appear soon.

I'm thinking that on systems built to be servers, either there will be no UEFI, or it will permit installation of non-Windows OSes, because there really isn't much of a server market for Windows.

I'm pretty sure this will be hackable as well ...

Quoting:I'm thinking that on systems built to be servers, either there will be no UEFI, or it will permit installation of non-Windows OSes

Besides, MS knows pretty well that OEMs will not go along with its strategy to block Linux on servers because it counts a good share of their server business.

That gets me thinking, Why MS is so much worried about the desktop when it maintains claiming it dominates? Is it an emptive attempt at something they see happening that we don't? Like an upward trend in Linux shares on the desktop!

UEFI Secure Boot: Big Hassle, Questionable Benefit

linux.com/learn/tutorials/588498-uefi-secure-boot-big-hassle-questionable-benefit

Very Good article TC.