[flarg]

Snippets from the comments below the article reveal all:

Jose Pedro 22 Sep 2011 4:06 PM # Having in mind that any open source operating system or bootloader would probably have to provide publicly their keys, thus making it hard to have these validated, how could secure boot be made to be compatible with these, or these to be functional with secure boot?

Steven Sinofsky 22 Sep 2011 4:10 PM # How secure boot works with any other operating systems is obviously a question for those OS products :-) We focus our boot loader on Windows and there are a number of alternatives for people who wish to have other sets of functionality.

Drewfus 22 Sep 2011 5:36 PM # @Steven Sinofsky: "How secure boot works with any other operating systems is obviously a question for those OS products :-)" Agreed. It is up to other OS vendors to get their acts together regarding secure boot, and if this causes conflicts with their licensing models, that's their problem. The onus is not on Microsoft to compromise system security to be 'fair' to the GPL, or whatever.

etc.

The original revelatory article was not FUD, Microsoft seem to be trying to 'accidently' lock out un-certified OSs. Ubuntu might go for it, Puppy probably will not. Crap.