No, you see when an article has accurate non-bias information it is a news article. When an article has wrong information and is filled with bias and opinion from the reporter it is an editorial. Look up the definitions. What you wrote is an editorial not a news piece. If it has your opinion in it, which this does, it is an editorial. This isn't a personal attack, just the facts. But adding your own opinion to the article you made it an editorial. I'm sorry you can't take correction of your mis-information without viewing it as a personal attack.
I was responding to the FTFY - that really wasn't very nice and nor was editing my quote in that derogatory way.
I don't think the info in my article is wrong, but sure, it has my opinion and bias mixed in with it, so if you want to call that an editorial then fine, but I don't see it that way. This is the style of news I do, so you could probably call
all my articles editorials when judged that way, lol. Depending on the subject, I can get my teeth stuck into some news items more than others. Something like this secure boot is rich in opportunities!
If it helps to see where I'm coming from,
The Register writes news in this style, they don't read like editorials and I like reading their comments and bias on what they're reporting.
Re the facts, you've actually responded more than once to me now, with long posts broken down into sections like this one and whether I agreed with you completely or not, I still thanked you, because you took the trouble to make constructive criticism (even when you put it all rather strongly, lol) which I always appreciate. I've duly clicked against these latest two.
Correct, but the only people that can possibly abuse it would be hardware OEMs, but not including the option to disable Secure Boot in their UEFI setup, not Microsoft, and the hardware OEMs abusing it will not be to lock out competition. Microsoft has no say in it.
Perhaps, but it's mighty convenient for Microsoft, isn't it? This is the point that Anderson is making and I can't see anything wrong with it. This whole signing strategy basically makes a whitelist of approved operating systems that can be installed on the computer, relying on the OEM to do the right thing and provide an off switch. No, this doesn't sit comfortably with me, like anything that restricts a paying customer.
Sure you did. You put opinions in the article based on the assumption that it was Microsoft the created and pushed this technology. You obviously had no clue that in fact it was huge industry leaders that developed it and are pushing for it long before Microsoft came into the picture.
You also assumed that Microsoft was just throwing around their wallet to get their way, again not knowing the fact that the UEFI Forum is comprised of companies as big or bigger than Microsoft.
You are correct that I should have looked up the structure of the UEFI Forum and didn't realize exactly who and what it comprised of, so I'm grateful for your correction. I could have certainly made a better article with more complete info on them and I will be looking at their website in more detail before posting the next news story on this subject. Therefore, yes, Microsoft's influence would indeed be greatly diminished given the big players involved, as you say.
I don't think I said that Microsoft created it (sorry, I can't 100% remember without looking it up now) but they are pushing it forward now and in the context of the lock-in being discussed, this is significant.
I'm pretty sure the multi-billion dollar companies that make up the UEFI Forum can handle it being a non-profit and front the little bit of money it takes to maintain the standard.
A relatively small amount for the Multi-Billion dollar companies that run it.
Yes, quite. That still won't stop them putting up hurdles to shut out the small player. This is politics and potential backroom deals we're talking about here, so anything could happen. It should not be taken for granted that this UEFI Forum will act in a completely ethical way.
bta's got his style, and it's arguably better for straight news. He still throws his opinion and bias in there, but seperate from the news post. With qubit, I just tend to read the article with a grain of salt and pick out the straight facts as they lay, I think as intended. The flipside is if you write articles laden with opinion, expect to hear our opinion in return 
