The solution to UEFI is to refrain from using it. Just use a classic BIOS.
If some Linux distribution cannot boot via a legacy BIOS (how difficult is that, really? we've been doing it for over 30 years), then it's not an OS worth using.
Relative to everything else BIOS software has not changed much in 30 years (ask yourself why; it does not need to), and only a couple of companies have a monopoly on nearly all BIOS software.
A BIOS does not need features. It does not need a shell and applications. It just needs to initialise hardware and launch a bootloader, and to be able to do this from a variety of media. That is, relatively, a very simple task. You want it to work everytime, with no fiddling.
UEFI is not giving you anything that is worth the hassle it can cause and the complications it can add to simply booting a device. It is not giving you more freedom.
Whatever the reasoning behind UEFI (maybe there is no compelling reason; that wouldn't be a first), UEFI is a recipe for disaster. Because MS is headed downhill, they will get desperate and will try anything to retain market share; and they have a history of using complexity and obscurity as a way of disincentiving many users from using Windows alternatives (e.g. Gates used the original BIOS strategically this way in the 80's).
UEFI is certainly not the path to "hardware and software freedom". It will not make things easier for any user who wants to use different OS's on a variety of HW. But it may be abused by MS who has immense influence on hardware manufacturers.
Can you expand on your definition of "wrapper culture" (not to be confused with rapper culture)?
Because if I understand your meaning, your comment could be applied to pretty much the entire "www". Almost everything offered by a "server" or "as a service" is something that anyone can run on their own machine. Windows is on the decline, UNIX is taking over. It has come to pass. OSX, iOS, Android, ... all UNIX. All UNIX machines can be clients, servers, or both.
The idea that someone would believe such machines are limited only to being "clients" is... PATHETIC.
With QNX you get a RTOS. You get a higher level of reliability, dependability than with multitasking. You don't get that sort of reliability with some pre-packaged Linux distribution. You need to do some nontrivial kernel hacking to make Linux into a RTOS.
I have never understood this type of backlash. I see it so often when discussing systems of reduced size (and sometimes reduced functionality). What is so offensive to you about small things? That you feel the need to make a comment like this? I don't get it.
If you want to use an OS that requires 7GB to install, you can. We won't hold it against you. And you can wax poetic about it.
But why is it that when someone wants to use a small system it causes people to make these sort of backlash comments?
The ironic thing here, with this example, is that demo scene actually accomplishes feats I have never seen done on larger systems. To use your analogy, the go-kart is able to do things, impressive things, the sedan doesn't do. Surely the sedan could, but it doesn't.
That's actually what Dropbox does. It's Python wrapped around the rsync libraries. And a catchy icon. A lot of work went into the icon.
rsync + python + icon = dropbox
I think of Dropbox as rsync for Windows and Mac users who know only how to click and drag, who don't know how to type comments, or who prefer to avoid learning rsync.
Do they say "No Thanks" to themselves?
Maybe the title should read: Google Says "No Thanks" to Other Bots