> The fundamental concept is actually very simple:
> If you are able to install and manage your own keys then secure boot is beneficial. If you are not then it's destructive.
I quite agree. It really isn't difficult to explain the difference to people. I think the FSF's choice to call the former "secure boot" and the latter "restricted boot" is sensible and reasonably clear, and Garrett's choice to follow that made sense. The full blog post did make this terminology clear; you shouldn't rely on quotes to include all necessary context.