>>"I'm not interested in the alleged merits of secure boot."
For someone "not interested" you've been posting a lot on the subject. So basically, you're "not interested" in what good it does. You only want to support your a priori position that it's bad.
>>"Yes, it's an extra layer and it stops most boot sector type viruses we got in the 90's"
Every post from you, the amount of information in the world decreases. In 2013, it was reported MBR attacks (master boot record) reached the highest ever. source. TDL version 4 infected 4.5 million PCs in 2011 and McAffee called it one of the most sophisticated attacks there was at the time. "got in the 90's" indeed.
So you're now admitting it provides extra security but refusing to backtrack on your claim that it's purpose isn't security. Silly.
>>"that there are several ways that secure boot can be defeated."
Very hard to do though. There are some UEFI implementations that are vulnerable if you get kernel mode priveleges. There's a userland exploit too, but it's not known what it is or which vendors are affected. They're presumably patching now. If you believe that because a security measure isn't 100% perfect by itself gives you reason to say it's purpose isn't security, then clearly nothing counts as security to you. Secure Boot makes an OS much more secure than the same OS without it.
>>"Good job I use Windows, then."
Don't really care what you say you use - it makes your arguments no less factually false either way. And your attitude of wanting people excluded from a community is reprehensible regardless of whether you're in it or not. Though the fact that you're now arguing that you would prefer the idiots to remain in "your" community suggests you maybe haven't planned this through and are just reacting to whatever I say with a counter-claim, no matter how inconsistent it is with your argument.