Wrong wrong wrong. Linux does need secure boot, it's a very important security feature, if you care about early boot stage compromises. What Sam fails to menti

Wrong wrong wrong. Linux does need secure boot, it's a very important security feature, if you care about early boot stage compromises. What Sam fails to mention is that the MS specs for secure boot require that users be able to load their own keys into the bios, this freeing them from MS signing. It may not be a standardised interface, but it is required. The only reason MS signing of linux boot loaders is important is so that it works out of the box without users fiddling with bios settings.