UEFI
	Unified Extensible Firmware Interface
	supposed to be next-generation boot firmware interface
	doesn't replace BIOS; can be implemented on top of BIOS or other firmware
	source: http://www.uefi.org/about/
Secure Boot
	defined in latest UEFI spec (2.3.1)
	designed to prevent "bootkits" between the firmware and the OS
	uses public key cryptography to implement a "verified software stack"
	verifies signatures of bootloaders and firmware images on HW components
	requires that only "approved" software may boot
	UEFI spec says Secure Boot is optional
Microsoft Windows 8 logo program
	requires that OEMs enable Secure Boot
Red Hat became aware of this in early August
Matthew Garrett first reported the issue 2011-09-20
	http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/5552.html
	expressed concern that many OEMs won't allow users to disable Secure Boot
Steven Sinofsky of MSFT responded 2011-09-22
	http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/09/22/protecting-the-pre-os-environment-with-uefi.aspx
	specified that OEMs must control the Platform Key
		only OEMs can sign software and firmware
	"supports OEMs having the flexibility to decide who manages security certificates and how to allow customers to import and manage those certificates, and manage secure boot"
	essentially:
		it's up to OEMs to decide if users can run their own OSes
		"it's not our fault if we're a monopoly"
Matthew Garrett responded to MSFT's response 2011-09-23
	http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/5580.html
	Windows 8 certification doesn't require OEMs to allow users to disable Secure Boot
	some OEMs have told RH that they won't allow users to disable Secure Boot
	loss of freedom:
		some hardware won't allow users to run non-MS OSes/bootloaders
		some hardware won't allow users to change hardware components
			(graphics card, SATA controller, network card, etc.)
	MSFT is misusing a useful feature of UEFI to put control in OEM hands
	MSFT hasn't denied anything
FSF campaign and statement, 2011-10-13
	http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot
	when done correctly (allowing user to authorize programs), useful feature
	MS and OEMs might implement restrictions such that users can't run non-MS SW
	OEMs must allow user to either disable Secure Boot or install a free OS
	alternative:
		complicated and risky measures to circumvent restrictions
		the end of reviving old HW with GNU/Linux: more electronic waste
		connections with OEMs = giant advantage for proprietary OS companies
	petition to OEMs with 20,000 signatures so far
RH, LF, and Canonical have written a white paper, 2011-10-28
	notes that most PCs will likely ship with Secure Boot in Q1 2012
	highlights implications of Secure Boot
	makes recommendations to OEMs to ensure users remain in control of their PCs
	http://blog.canonical.com/2011/10/28/white-paper-secure-boot-impact-on-linux/
	http://www.redhat.com/about/news/blog/red-hat-the-linux-foundation-and-canonical-publish-white-paper-on-unfied-extensible-firmware-interface
ZDNet's Ed Bott contacted Dell and HP, 2011-11-02
	http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/leading-pc-makers-confirm-no-windows-8-plot-to-lock-out-linux/4185
	"Dell has plans to make SecureBoot an enable/disable option in BIOS setup"
		(as demanded by FSF)
	HP largely unaware of the issue and still focused on Windows 7
	AMI "will advise OEMs to provide a default configuration that allows users to enable / disable secure boot, but it remains the choice of the OEM to do (or not do) so"
"lucas maximus" of OSNews responded to Ed Bott, 2011-11-03
	http://www.osnews.com/story/25293/Dell_HP_Respond_to_Secure_Boot_Issue
	notes that "having plans" isn't definitive, but is at least reassuring
	HP wasn't aware of the issue, so the response is a general empty PR statement
	nothing from Dell, HP, or AMI is reassuring

TO ADD:
	parallels with TC
	anti-trust violations
	MSFT history
		DOS lockout
		MBR multiboot lockout
http://techrights.org/2011/09/22/tricks-with-boot-process/
http://techrights.org/2011/09/29/boot-abuse-and-complaint/
http://techrights.org/2009/08/20/linux-mbr-in-vista-7/
http://techrights.org/2011/08/10/biggest-technology-bully/
http://techrights.org/2011/05/08/system-updates-vs-grub/
http://techrights.org/2009/01/24/ms-multi-boot-sabotage/
http://techrights.org/2008/05/15/eula-hyper-on-motherboards/
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/columns/uefi_and_windows_8_bad_news_gnu_linux