UEFI 'Secure Boot' is Potential Mayhem to the Environment (Older and Leaner Distros Stop Working)
"Disabling secure boot is an option in many, if not most, devices," said this person in comp.misc (USENET). "I have done it many times, even on a Surface tablet."
"Installing Linux on an obsolete PC is a niche use case," another said, "just one that happens to be well-represented in Usenet."
Some very old PCs cannot and will not work with the latest and greatest distros. For many reasons, including archiving, old distros still need to be booted on more modern machines.
But Microsoft's aim is to sell more PCs... with new restrictions (attacks on the users!) and a Windows licence.
Further down, on the lack of real-world security:
Your favorite AI is missing some of the point.If you have device encryption enabled, then when your laptop is stolen from your car or house the bad guys won't be able to read what is on the disk.
Whether or not secure boot is enabled, they won't be able to read what is on the disk. So disk encryption is actually useful in some applications.
Secure boot will prevent the system from booting without a boot password, so without the boot password they won't be able to boot the machine and try to guess your login password. It's really just a matter of passwording the machine as well as the disk and it's not really that useful.
Secure boot will in fact prevent bad people with physical access from making changes to the bios firmware, but that is a relatively small risk.
It won't even do that. There's more recent research on bypasses.
Talk about creating new problems, disguised as "solutions" to problems that do not exist.
It seems like the only "evil maid" is a bunch of Microsofters who pose as security experts (despite having no credentials in the area) and then try to paint every critic of "secure boot" (and of Rust) as "transphobic". That in itself is defamatory. █