Did you even read my post? I never stated or implied that I desired in any way to setup secure boot for myself.
My point was that making Linux work with secure boot by default makes it more accessible to more people. Other than it being my opinion, it wasn’t about me or my desires at all.
Fair enough, not to try to derail this thread but I was talking about this 
My point was that making Linux work with secure boot by default makes it more accessible to more people.
I read and understand that, but it goes against everything that GNU, FOSS, and Linux especially Arch and distro’s based on it are all about, so those people obviously don’t have the same sentiment, but lucky for them and as you already know and pointed out in your original post that there are, and even named some Linux distro’s that do just that, so what’s the problem? Those people are well served on Ubuntu, Pop OS, Linux Mint… which diehard Linux users consider as a Windows distro’s, and won’t use, me included! Besides, if everyone on linux forums that wants to/has to use Secure Boot would badger, protest, and boycott Microsoft who are the ones responsible, instead of asking Linux to kiss their butt and grovel at their feet, and that before it was even rolled out, Microsoft would have little choice but to reconsider, or else suffer the consequences, but that didn’t happen! The ones who did all that and had Microsoft take out the even more egregious parts (Yes it was way worse) wer mainly Linux organizations, developers users, consumer rights activists, while Microsoft users did what they always do: Say “They wouldn’t do that”, Talk it down as if it was unwarranted hysteria, or ignore it altogether, and when it hit the market the great majority of windows users instaled Windows & or bought W11 Boxes and clicked on “I Agree” sending Microsoft and motherboard manufacturers a clear signal: “It’s A-OK, please abuse us some more!” and it’s because of that that we are in this predicament, and with more, even worse to come! So the last thing any Windows user can ask for is try to make Linux become part of AND fix the problem! Oh the audacity!
If they can’t figureit out on Arch, then they have a whole boat load of other things they won’t be able to understand and do unless they learn how to do them themselves, despite there being extensive and comprehensive documentation on how in the Arch wiki, to which they may try to argue with the Arch team and users on it’s forum, asking for a GUI program to do so, then have it fully automated and activated by default… to where they will not be treated kindly, as arch will not bow down to big tech that is anti user freedom and all about the user as the product, nor should they. So those who can’t get on board with it will have to stay ashore, as no OS, Distro, Hardware, Software, silverware, underwear… will ever please everyone.
If they grant this, then it will be used as an argument to grant more of the same (Been there done that, learned the lesson), and then Linux won’t be Linux, but have to end up just like windows, and the line has to be drawn somewhere, and Secure boot and TPM are way over that line, and as implemented they are not about user security and all about Microsoft securing ownership of users hardware and with it control over users, and that just doesn’t fly on Arch PERIOD.
What you are doing is analog to asking a vet to make your cat look and behave like a dog, instead of just getting a dog! You are barking up the wrong tree, and should take it up with Microsoft! They created the mess, have them clean it up!
You sound like like an elitist Arch user who thinks less of someone because they aren’t using Arch. Do you really think that even if all of the Linux desktop users(maybe 3-4% of the pc user world) would protest again secureboot and not use it that they wouldn’t not go through with it? Hell no because the other 97% of the world uses Windows and MacOS on their desktops/laptops and even in the Linux server world it is already supported.
To be clear I have been using Linux for a quite a long time and I also ran vanilla Arch for several years. However I find the Secure Boot Archwiki page one of the most confusing wiki pages in the Archwiki and I haven’t tried it yet because of the high risk it seems to have of bricking your system. I will try it one of these days in a vm and see what happens… Maybe it will become less confusing when I try it?
If your whole argument is because it’s in the Archwiki then the EndeavorOS distribution should be cancelled because everyone using EndeavorOS can just read the Archwiki and install/setup Arch. Isn’t the whole idea and goal of EndeavorOS to provide a lightweight distribution that ships with the minimum amount of preinstalled software so that it is close enough to Arch and being easy to install by using a graphical installer(and of course the friendly community around it)?
You are forgetting one thing, secureboot is here to stay and and at one point it will be enabled by default on all hardware and you won’t be able to turn it if off. Which would create a situation where you would have to read the secureboot Archwiki page after having used a graphical installer to install EndeavourOS to finish the installation by setting up secureboot yourself and just hoping that you won’t brick your system and that it will still boot. That would be comparable to the having the option to install a bootloader removed from the EndeavourOS installer, because well you know you can just install the bootloader yourself after having gone through the normal installation process(which is a graphical installer) by reading the Archwiki page for the bootloader that you want to use because if your bootloader breaks you need to know how to fix it.
I find that attitude quite opposite of what EndeavourOS seems to want to achieve. So why not prepare for the future situation which is that secureboot will be enabled by default on all hardware without an option where you will be able to turn it off and allow users to select during the install whether they want it enabled or disabled just like you can with the boatloader?
It was extremely excessive.
This was the original question and this topic has turned into nothing but opinionated rants by some. I really don’t care for it. It sucks the oxygen out of the room and as far as I’m concerned not worth it. More important things in life to care about! 
There are some pretty interesting terms being throwing around like going against what Linux is about.
Linux is an operating system. It isn’t about anything. It doesn’t have opinions on SecureBoot or any other topic.
The community of people who use and contribute to Linux is made up of a diverse group of people.
These groups may have some shared opinions but for the most part, they each have their own individual beliefs like virtually any other large group of people.
The idea that Secure Boot is somehow against the principals of Arch also seems pretty strange to me. Arch has more proprietary software in the repos than most other distros. Further, there have been conversations on the Arch mailing lists about implementing Secure Boot. It has been a while since I read one of those but I fairly sure the reasons it hasn’t been implemented are not philosophical but practical.
This topic was automatically closed 2 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.