[mark_l_watson]

Doug, if you use a Linux distro that is not signed, then yes, it is an issue because you will have to track down laptops that allow allow disabling secure boot. BTW, I didn't intend to sound flippant in my original comment, it is just that as I get older (I turn 2^8 next month, yeah :-) I am more concerned with convenience, fun and productive development environments, etc.

[Twirrim]

So what if Microsoft decide to no longer allow Ubuntu or Redhat to get signed keys?

[gnoway]

I would be more worried about other OS projects that are either too disorganized to meet whatever the signing qualifications are, or have ideological issues which prevent them from participating.

[pgeorgi]

Canonical doesn't enforce signature checks for module loading (which is useful for DKMS based kernel modules, and is also a "freedom to tinker" matter). That may well lead to a revoked Secure Boot key at some point...

[polar]

> I turn 2^8 next month

256‽

[mark_l_watson]

Good catch. I meant 2^6

[vezzy-fnord]

Thankfully, that's just about any x86 laptop at present.