to my mind, what sucks about Microsoft's 'hardware upgrade' is that it will drive the entire PC industry to build hardware that has a proprietary Microsoft lock

to my mind, what sucks about Microsoft's 'hardware upgrade' is that it will drive the entire PC industry to build hardware that has a proprietary Microsoft lock on it. Secure Boot is not an open standard, it is a Microsoft owned and controlled lock. I have already run into enterprise grade machines that forced secure boot, making them useless in our organization. I haven't found any info on the 11 logo certification, but for 8.1 they required it and required that it not be able to be turned off. I'm all for increased security, but I'm also for general purpose computing. If I buy a machine with a particular instruction set, I should be able to some way execute any code I want on that computer. Same goes for Apple, though to be fair, it is possible to execute any code I want on an M1 Mac, I would just have to essentially reverse engineer the hell out of everything. And yes Apple should provide at least a basic level of documentation for targeting their hardware and they do not. I am a slightly more charitable to their position because they brought brand new capability to market-- Microsoft is just corralling the vendors into tacking their propriety firmware lock onto the same technology stack. If this was a chip manufacturer initiative, say AMD wants to bring new capabilities and security by only accepting signed OS builds I would be far more receptive to that position, so long as there was a reasonable, accessible and equitable path for getting your builds signed.