Microsoft had announced at some point that if computer manufacturers (OEMs) wish to distribute systems with the Windows compatibility logo, they will have to implement a measure called “Secure Boot” or “Secure Boot”.
However, we should think very seriously whether this technology lives up to its name or should earn the name "Restricted Boot".
Let's see what we mean more correctly:
“Secure Boot” designed to protect against malware preventing computers from loading unauthorized programs at startup. In practice, however, this means that computers that implement it will not boot unauthorized operating systems – including originally authorized systems that have been modified without being re-approved by Microsoft.
This could be a feature that really offers a Secure Boot, since the user can license the programs it wants to use so it can run free software written and modified by someone else company or from people he trusts.
However, Microsoft and OEMS (system manufacturers) can implement these boot restrictions in a way that prevents users from booting anything else except from Windows.
In this case, we should call the technology "restricted boot" (Restricted Boot), since such a requirement is a destructive limitation for computer users and not a security feature.
What is secure is at the same time restricted, I wonder why you consider them different things