Theo de raadt already blasted Redhat and Ubuntu for instantly compromising and submitting to microsoft. Linux foundation non resistance makes no sense to me either since a lot of people who sit on the board are direct competitors to M$ you'd think they would want to save their companies from being at their mercy.
I'm waiting for when cloud o/s takes over that scans for pirate software/dissident behaviour or thought crime, and it becomes illegal to run your own operating system. There will be a Silk Road for computer hardware and guy's peddling BSD installs in dark alleys.
What should they have done? As I see it, they had three options with secure boot: find ways to work with it (as they have), try to get OEMs to disable secure boot or ship with a 'Linux key' as well, or ignore it and let users who want to install Linux deal with it.
Making users disable secure boot makes it that much harder and scarier to try Linux, so there would be even fewer users in the future. And I see no evidence that OEMs care enough about Linux to go out of their way to make life easier, even if someone did produce a 'Linux key' to sign all the major distributions. There are a precious few small OEMs that sell computers with Linux, but mostly to existing Linux users. If desktop Linux isn't going to fade into complete irrelevance, we're still crucially dependent on people experimenting with it on Dell/Lenovo/Acer Windows laptops.
I'm waiting for when cloud o/s takes over that scans for pirate software/dissident behaviour or thought crime, and it becomes illegal to run your own operating system. There will be a Silk Road for computer hardware and guy's peddling BSD installs in dark alleys.