Yes. From a computing freedom point of view, the only way I have freedom over my computing is if I control the code that's running on it. If I'm running code that I don't have source for, I don't quite control it as much as I'd like to. But if someone else is running code that I don't have source for, I sure as heck don't control it!
Running a closed-source bootloader on a platform with firmware enforcement of signed bootloaders is not good. But the problem is not the signature requirement, the problem is the closed-source bootloader. The signature requirement is only a problem in the case where (as on Windows-logo machines running ARM) it requires you to run a closed-source bootloader, or even an open-source one that you do not have the ability to make changes to. If you want to ensure your computing freedom, the best thing to do is to have your firmware ensure that you and you alone, or someone you trust and them alone (e.g. a vendor of a free OS that you think is reputable), can boot code on your computer.
But in the windows kernel rooting exploit were really everywhere before that started being deployed.
We can blame "everyone runs root all the time" and "disabling uac is a common tip on all windows site because users are used to be super administrator", and they all come back to Windows security model and default being complete shit until Windows 8 ((7 was still super admin as default user right?)), but I certainly won't blame Microsoft for finally cleaning that mess.
Go back less than a decade back and most windows system of everyday users would have some kind of crap running as super root, that was terrible.
I don't get why people focus so much on windows for this these days. I mean, if you can get more freedom there, great, but it's not like it's lacking at all there.
Apple and Google, and perhaps the telcos those are the companies that need convincing.
I think you're missing the point. It's not about you, personally. It's about the general users. It's what, 90% of all desktop? And the vast majority of those are an easy target for such things.
It's not really surprising that it gets some consideration.
But there are already more mobile computers than non-mobile. Anybody who thinks desktop still matters for the general population is kidding themselves. Especially Apple seems to like the very (VERY) heavy handed walled garden approach. FB is a bit nicer than them, and Google seems most flexible, using "soft" means (e.g. kicking adblockers and emulators out of the app store, or simply not promoting them).
Running a closed-source bootloader on a platform with firmware enforcement of signed bootloaders is not good. But the problem is not the signature requirement, the problem is the closed-source bootloader. The signature requirement is only a problem in the case where (as on Windows-logo machines running ARM) it requires you to run a closed-source bootloader, or even an open-source one that you do not have the ability to make changes to. If you want to ensure your computing freedom, the best thing to do is to have your firmware ensure that you and you alone, or someone you trust and them alone (e.g. a vendor of a free OS that you think is reputable), can boot code on your computer.