The PC market is slowing down. More people are spending the limited money they have on smartphones and tablets. Those who need some measure of grunt to do more resource-intensive tasks are buying laptops. Hence the percentage of those buying readymade systems is increasing and all those machines will come with Windows 8 and secure boot.
Those who buy parts and build their own systems will have a few years free from worry. After that they will see a decreasing number of components as manufacturers cut back. These intrepid souls will finally have to buy readymade devices too. They will also have to savour the delights of secure boot and locked-down computing.
By going along with Microsoft, and not even bothering to join together and raise a stink, the rest of the computer industry has created a situation where Microsoft can surface again a couple of years down the track and lobby for making secure boot mandatory for all devices. After all, the company can argue that secure boot has been widely accepted - this will be true - and nobody has objected. Everyone has adapted and started to use it.
The myth that it contributes to security will be spread again and there will be no defence against secure boot being mandated by governments. Is there any guarantee that the cost of a key to implement secure boot will cost $US99 at that stage? It will turn out to be a nice little earner.
"Some call that an 'abuse' of such items by extending their application far beyond their declared usages - unless, of course, one views 'security' as 'guarding against threats to our profits' as a component of modern "security" practice - which a cynic most certainly might!!!"
A look at what Red Hat and Canonical have done does not give one much optimism either. In Red Hat's case, the entire chain of events in getting a machine to a usable state is governed by signed code. This means that any change in kernel modules, or fixing a kernel bug, will mean that one cannot boot. How about the enthusiasts who compile their own kernels? They will have to conform as well.
Canonical has created its own lock-in; using the method that it has outlined, one can only boot an Ubuntu disc. Of course, the company has reasons for doing this - don't they all?
Debian developers held a 45-minute discussion about secure boot at a camp in Managua recently. Their leader, Stefano Zacchiroli, has not responded to an email I sent him, asking what the project plans to do. We have not heard a peep out of the smaller GNU/Linux projects or companies; Mandriva is still getting back on its feet, SUSE has been quiet. The last two named have one advantage in that they are based in Europe where Microsoft is regarded with much disdain.
A massive potential mess has been created by the approach taken by the non-Microsoft companies. The only firm that has nothing to bother about is Apple which gated its own customers a long time ago. It has its sheep within the pen and had been dictating to them for a long, long time what they can and cannot do.
GNU/Linux users had an illusion of freedom for a while but it looks like they have been sold out by the very companies that have benefitted most from all the code written by those who thought they were following a dream. It looks like it will turn out to be a bad dream.