Thought you Rufus users out there might want to read this, especially if you are UEFI/GPT users. Veryinteresting reading and explains why there are so many problems with booting a Rufus made flash drive, at least it does to me.
Why do I need to disable Secure Boot to use UEFI:NTFS?
This UEFI:NTFS/secure boot issue has been around for a long time.
However, I noticed with 1809 that the pre-made ISO from MS (e.g. if you download it from Linux) has a install.wim that is > 4GB so you can no longer create a FAT32 install medium with Rufus from that ISO like you could with earlier versions. That means if you go this route you have to create an NTFS drive and disable secure boot in order to install in UEFI mode.
I stopped using Rufus, because of that and switched to Universal USB Installer. UEFI/GPT works just fine.
From the OP link, the answer of your doubt:
"the ONLY reason we do not provide a signed UEFI:NTFS bootloader, which would avoid requesting that you disable Secure Boot, is because MICROSOFT (again the only entity that controls the Secure Boot signing process) HAVE UNILATERALLY DECIDED, FOR NO REASON THAT STANDS THE TEST OF SCRUTINY, THAT ANYTHING LICENSED UNDER GPLv3 CAN NOT BE SIGNED FOR SECURE BOOT, EVER. "
Without the resources to pay for licensing Secure Boot, it sounds like the developer is just complaining about their shortcomings. There are plenty of valid reasons to keep Secure Boot enabled and temporarily disabling it to use Rufus, is not something that some are comfortable with, if they do not understand that process.
Yes. He makes a lot of valid points, reasoning why the issue with Secure Boot not being enabled, cannot be resolved until he can afford the costs to implement it.
No, that is not the reason, did you see roy111's post? I quote:
"the ONLY reason we do not provide a signed UEFI:NTFS bootloader, which would avoid requesting that you disable Secure Boot, is because MICROSOFT (again the only entity that controls the Secure Boot signing process) HAVE UNILATERALLY DECIDED, FOR NO REASON THAT STANDS THE TEST OF SCRUTINY, THAT ANYTHING LICENSED UNDER GPLv3 CAN NOT BE SIGNED FOR SECURE BOOT, EVER. "
Quote