It's hard to believe when MS use secure boot to prevent Linux being able to boot. Twice now on my dual boot system a Windows update has prevented Linux being bootable. If it weren't for MS's history one might consider it the accident of a ridiculously inept company.

Even just the lies around required hw updates is enough not to trust them.

SecureBoot looks like a system designed to make it hard to change OS, it has been used by MS for that, MS have a history of user-antagonist actions.

You say the conspiracy was never true, I'm going to need some serious proof.

> SecureBoot looks like a system designed to make it hard to change OS

To be fair SecureBoot is in a way just that: it is intended to only boot binaries that are signed with a key that has been enrolled into the UEFI. The main issue is like almost always how those keys are managed.