> Another example is Secure Boot, some laptop manufactures are no longer allowing Legacy Boot. Were is the Foundation on this issue. Instead Microsoft donates large amounts and nothing is said about who signs the keys. It is just about impossible for many people to install Linux (or a BSD) on some new hardware without jumping through Secure Boot Loops.

I think you're wrong on this one. You seem to be mixing up UEFI vs Secure Boot. The elimination of legacy boot in favor of UEFI has nothing to do with Secure Boot being enabled. Secure Boot is a good thing. In this case Microsoft is just acting as a Certificate Authority. Mainstream distros like RHEL, Ubuntu, and Debian have signed bootloaders. They pay MS a modest fee for what is essentially CA services. If a hobbyist distro doesn't want to pay then they don't get the benefits. A lot of OSS developers don't even sign their code because they object to paying for a code signing cert. If you want to play in the walled garden you have to pay the toll. Despite this I've yet to come across a device that prohibits disabling Secure Boot.