And that's exactly the wrong solution.

I do want to use secure boot and TPM2 (I do, currently). Just not with windows. Why should be secure boot windows exclusive feature? Until now, it wasn't.

There was no sarcasm.

> And that's exactly the wrong solution.

it's a solution

it's only a matter of choice, there's no wrong choice, choices are personal.

You're complaining about something that's very easy to overcome.

> I do want to use secure boot and TPM2 (I do, currently). Just not with windows

You can.

just disable device guard.

> Why should be secure boot windows exclusive feature?

you are angry about the wrong thing

device guard and secure boot are different things, related, but different.

It is not a solution, it is a bad workaround.

> device guard and secure boot are different things, related, but different.

The problem is that it can have potentially catastrophic impact. If the user enabled Bitlocker, and didn't save recovery key (it will happen for mainstream users), he can lose his windows drive when he tries linux.

As I wrote above, another extra-hop for those who would like to go off the beaten windows path.

> then the user is responsible of being incautious.

Congratulation, you just invalidated the entire raison d'etre of both Secure Boot and this new Device Guard.