> that secure boot be able to be turned off and users be able to add their own keys?
On x86, but not on ARM. And that's quite possibly more important, because ARM platforms are likely porting targets for things like Android that "regular users" might actually want.
There's something to be said here for consumer choice. Why go out of your way to prevent me running something that I'm willing to put effort into running?
After all, it's my goddamn tablet that I'm buying.
The mandatory ability to add keys or disable Secure boot is also quite likely just as secure, except that you still own your device.
I'd even be happy if it was a hidden switch like on the first Chromebooks.
Without Linus tinkering on his own machine back in the '90s, we may have never had Android today. We may have never had OS X on x86 if the random apple employee hadn't decided to try to do it one day.
I support the ability to make, modify, and create. Having good products is important, but let's not sacrifice too much.
Cars still have hoods, even the fanciest ones. Let's not put locks on the computer equivalent.
Then campaign for unlocking the bootloader on the iPad, which is the largest selling "ARM platform" by a huge margin. Interesting that no one seems to care about that.
I would applaud the same campaign against Motorola/Google.
They publish the Linux kernel for their Android phones, complying to GPL. But the lock the boot loader, preventing everybody to install its own kernel.
If having an unlocked bootloader is important to you, stop buying locked phones. It really is that simple. The Galaxy Nexus is $350 unsubsidized on the Play Store[1], and is completely unlocked (okay, I admit, you have to run fastboot oem unlock).
On x86, but not on ARM. And that's quite possibly more important, because ARM platforms are likely porting targets for things like Android that "regular users" might actually want.