Secure Boot As Anti-Competitive Behavior
When I first installed Linux on my then-new computer last year to replace an old Linux pre-made laptop, I learned about Ventoy, which is a USB tool that allows ISOs to run on EFI hardware and multiple files to be added. I downloaded the ISO there, and it was perfectly valid, but it refused to boot saying it was a "secure boot violation". I was able to turn it off by going into the boot menu but it was still unsettling, to have Microsoft making it harder to boot my own system.
Here's why I think this is anti-competitive behavior. Many people might shrug and continue using Windows after getting that error not understanding what it actually means (that the OS is not recognized). Even though the security angle is perfectly legitimate and reasonable (some malware can attach to the bootloader and potentially be almost undetectable to other systems), it feels like an excuse. Even though Microsoft does allow Linux access by signing keys for some bootloaders, if it was really about security, users should be able to sign their own keys and not have it block other operating systems by default.
What scares me in the future is the idea of Microsoft ordering PC makers to sell computers with Secure Boot locked down and then have the non-Windows keys expire so it is impossible to replace Windows unless someone finds a hardware/firmware level exploit, or only possible to disable by enabling a "developer mode". They might be testing the water by making Secure Boot keys expire this week. The reason I don't think they will is because of regulator backlash. I did some research and I found out that regulators treat PC makers as different from cell phones because of the level of general purpose computing involved.
= new reply since forum marked as read
