Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

[Ian Smith]

In freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 418, Issue 19, Message: 23
On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 16:56:49 -0400 Jerry <jerry at seibercom.net> wrote:
 > On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 22:06:26 +0200
 > Julian H. Stacey articulated:
[..]
 > >As a start here's :	 http://berklix.org/uefi/
 > >
 > >URLs welcome. Contact names welcome. Volunteers welcome.
 > 
 > It is posts like this that basically turn my stomach. A product, any
 > product, should succeed or fail based on its own merits and not because
 > some government agency aided or thwarted it. Most, it not nearly all PC
 > manufacturers exist solely because of Microsoft. The PC market balloons
 > every time Microsoft releases a new version of Windows. Seriously now,
 > how many PC were sold because FreeBSD released version 9 of its OS? If
 > you want to beat someone, you make a better product. You don't go
 > running to your mamma asking for protection. That stinks of
 > socialism/fascism. The UEFI specification has existed for years.
 > Supposedly, Linux has been capable of using it for 8+ years. I have
 > no idea if FreeBSD is even capable of handling it. It wouldn't
 > surprise me it if couldn't though. What this really tells me is that
 > there has been way to much procrastination by the FOSS. Microsoft
 > simply took advantage of an existing standard (remember "standards"
 > something the FOSS is always crying about) and now FOSS is begging for
 > mercy. This is more than just slightly funny, it is pathetic. If 1% of
 > the effort of spreading this BS over UEFI had gone into working on a
 > solution for UEFI two years ago, we wouldn't be having this discussion
 > at all.

I'vw been wondering when this topic would summon our longest-serving 
resident troll for Microsoft out of the woodwork for a proper full-tilt 
rant, replete with inimitable "socialism/fascism" jibe.  Gotta love it!

Ian