A while ago appeared on the scene UEFI, the protocol that comes to replace BIOS, the reliable and stable protocol created by IBM a long, long time ago.
The point is that from the moment it came out, a huge controversy has been created around it and people (mostly Linux users) have jumped to fight over this. Well, it should be noted that UEFI It is a restrictive protocol that does not allow dual-boot of any operating system, but that does not mean that it does not allow the installation of other operating systems. As i read UEFI is easy to disable on the hardware where it is configured from the factory and would allow installing any other operating system, although it would only allow booting with That one operating system.
Another interesting thing about UEFI is that, as far as I understand, it will not be a forced imposition but that anyone who wants to sell Windows 8 (that's how I understood it) on your OEM machines, you should have it. Now, remember that many vendors are not directly dedicated to making OEM computers or Laptops but they create hardware such as motherboards, so those motherboards will not come with UEFI unless they say something like «compatible with Windows 8"And that in the long run, with all that can be said, the" security "of UEFI it can be easily disabled.
Now not long ago too Fedora announces that it will buy certification keys UEFI a ecosystem for Fedora run on systems with UEFI without having to disable anything. Well, this has been criticized by many users saying that now they are paying ecosystem for being able to run their software on hardware that does not belong to them, directly or indirectly ... let's start there.
Is UEFI a monopoly?
It depends on where you see it, I feel found because I think so, the simple fact of having to pay ecosystem $ 99 per month (or annual, I don't know how much or how exactly it is) for being able to run my operating system on hardware that is not yours is undoubtedly a monopoly, in fact, it would be doing the same as Apple with their hardware "signed" for use only by Macs. So from that point of view UEFI It is undoubtedly a monopoly, you have to be quite blunt about that.
But ... there is also the argument that UEFI it's easy to disable. Ok, that's a yes but no; easy to disable for people like me or many of you who know where to put your hand and where to put "disabled", but not for a user totally unrelated to computing who has looked out of curiosity for a Linux distro and wants to install it, is going to hitting a wall hard just won't be able to do anything unless the distro has signed keys. Then we are in a Limbo because, if the distro is not signed and the user is a novice, then that is where it goes, but on the contrary if he knows what he is doing, send the secure boot to the horn and install his distro in a two-by-three ... It is somewhat complicated but I continue to favor my opinion that it is, in essence, a blatant monopoly.
And my Dual-Boot?
Of course, forget about it, because from the moment you acquire a machine with UEFI dual-boot is removed from the equation. Why? Well supposedly UEFI it will increase computer security and boot speed considerably, where a Dual-Boot is supposed to slow down boot, but I don't know so much about this point to talk openly about it. So, either is it Linux, or is it Windows, but not both, so if you are a gamer and a Linux user, your true taste for Linux (I'm sure many stay to play) and if you are a pure Linux user, we know what your decision will be.
Is it okay for distros to buy UEFI certified keys?
This… well, it's complicated to deal with. First of all we have to take into account the economic position of each distro and its purpose. Fedora (Red-Hat) has all the human and financial resources it needs and its distro, both are dedicated to productivity, they have work teams and also a community that supports them, although this will surely reduce community support due to the fact that they are paying them to the "enemy."
Canonical y Ubuntu, I highly doubt that they do not take this consideration into account and that they buy their key, they more than anyone are fighting for a space in the mainstream of operating systems and you can also pay without problems.
Linux Mint they may do so if we consider their position and that they also want to compete in the market, although they are not a company and many may not support that.
Debian... sure they have the resources, but from them I highly doubt that they will lower a penny for this, provided it is rare that novice users get to Debian.
Suse y OpenSuse well ... they are endorsed by ecosystem, they may not even have to pay anything.
Arch HAH! they won't xD.
Mandriva… It's dead…
I personally would not support this and would even recommend that companies as large as Red-Hat or emerging like Canonical get together and make a monopoly complaint. The ordinary user is not affected by this, but software companies outside ecosystem yes, and in what way ...
Anyway, all this is just my appreciation and you should have yours… Why don't you share them?