Quoting Sam Varghese (sam@gnubies.com):
Rick, if you read this guy's article carefully you'll notice that he makes mention that his installation did not involve secure boot.
Ah, good catch. You know, fundamentally, a computer with UEFI Secure Boot enabled _if_ it provides no means in the BIOS to disable that function is just basically not a general-purpose computer, but rather a locked-down single-purpose appliance. If you buy such a thing, you are assuming the risk that your intended repurposing of the machine may be impaired or prevented by the technical measures to prevent unauthorised code running in kernelspace. My own preferred way of dealing with that would be to either (1) replace the BIOS with coreboot, or (2) sell off the offending hardware and get something more suitable. However: Matthew Garrett's shim bootloader and similar solutions provide ways to make UEFI Secure Boot an asset rather than a liability for Linux/BSD/etc. systems, so that's another way around the problem. Anyway, I _still_ continue to think that dual-booting is generally a solution to the wrong problem, and that running alternative OSes (such as MS-Windows ;-> ) in a virtual machine session gives vastly superior operational results. That is, in my experience, users who think they will get good usage out of a dual-boot setup are overly optimistic, and have not stopped to consider how disruptive of one's computing it is to shut everything down and reboot. In the long term, I've noticed, they stay 99.9% of the time in one OS and ignore the other. Which means they've wasted their time and effort. By contrast, a VM approach (given adequate RAM and CPU to make both OSes comfortable) allows and encourages concurrent use of both operating systems.