Meh :/ I started with the techrights link, and first looked at the 3rd link, "Installing GNU/Linux is Still Hard Due to UEFI" to learn, and the source article it was based on actually had the writer saying there was no problem at all with uefi+secure boot on, his linux just installed and worked fine on his new laptop. The other two february links weren't much better, at worst an already fixed bug, that did not originate at Microsoft... The FSF link seems more technically accurate as far as I can tell as a non-linux, non-uefi user, but most of their problems are hypothetical and not so much practical problems for now.
Are there better sources to read up on this, or is the controversy a bit over blown?
It isn't UEFI, it is peripheral manufacturers who hate Linux for whatever reason. Broadcom, Creative, Nvidia, and others all have legacies of horrible device support in the kernel.
You can't blame Linus for that. If a company doesn't want to push what is often only a few hundred lines of C to make their devices work under Linux, thats their right. But you can't blame the ecosystem for the companies choices not to support it. It is like buying Nexus 7 and bitching about how Windows doesn't run on it.
All my computers run UEFI if possible, and all of them run Linux.
I have no problems with UEFI whatsoever; in fact, I think it's a nice improvement to the dated BIOS technology. The Microsoft thing called "Secure Boot" might pose a problem, but I never activate that anyway.
People need to stop confounding UEFI with Secure Boot.
Are there better sources to read up on this, or is the controversy a bit over blown?