And you're doing an exemplary job of demonstrating that point about FUD. > Secure Boot does nothing at all for Linux and BSD Systems, While a trustworthy boo

And you're doing an exemplary job of demonstrating that point about FUD. > Secure Boot does nothing at all for Linux and BSD Systems, While a trustworthy boot chain may not be important to you personally, for many people and organisations it is, regardless of whether they're running Linux or Windows or any other OS. Secure boot is the only means to provide any assurance at all that the platform firmware, kernel, initrd and other essential elements of the boot chain have not been modified. This is a prerequisite to, among other things, being able to automatically unseal encrypted secrets on boot, or to have full disk encryption where you can be moderately confident that nothing has been modified to steal your FDE passphrase the next time you type it in. > all it does is: > * make it impossible to install Linux and BSD on arm systems with windows Windows ARM systems make up a tiny portion of the market and they are difficult to run anything else on even without secure boot. > * make it hard for newbies to install these systems How? The major distros have signed shims and largely work out of the box, and it's one checkbox in the BIOS config menu for those which don't. > Plus you need to pay Microsoft to use Secure boot on your newer Intel Systems. Sorry, but that's a straight up lie. > That is what Red Hat did for their shim which many distros use. Only to provide the convenience of not having to load your own keys.