Garrett: Some things you may have heard about Secure Boot which aren't entirely true

Only a threat to hobbyist Linux? Then it is a threat to everyone. Since when are only corporations considered legitimate competitors in the market? This as much as admits that the system is a barrier to market entry. It is most certainly anti-competitive as it is intended to make it harder to replace the Microsoft junk that is delivered with your hardware with something you actually want.

So everyone who decides to use a free-of cost Linux distro as their primary computer system is a Linux hobbyist? Then every home user of a Window computer is a Microsoft hobbyist and every home user of an apple product is a hobbyist. The use of Linux for casual use is increasing. It is every bit as legitimate and significant as any activity done with the proprietary products. An operating system is only a hobby if you spend your time actually tinkering with it. If you use it as your primary computer for communications and personal business then it is a tool that serves exactly the same purpose as Windows or OSX. It is no hobby.

Secure boot intends to take choice away from me. It will not make Windows any safer but only enable Microsoft to put less effort into making its product save and operating properly in the first place. Windows is unsafe by design and always will be. There is too much market history to make it otherwise. A safe Windows would be so inconvenient to use that it would be a complete failure in the market place. Secure boot doesn't fix that, it just protects the disease.