I wasn't seeking to defend MS (Lord knows, I'd be the last person to do this, being exclusively a Linux user on my home machine), but merely pointing out that the issue is not quite what many people seem intent on portraying it as.
In addition, although distributable signing keys will be charged for (at $99, not $500), the Fedora team are to release a free open source tool for generating a personal signing key, which means that individual users will be able to sign their own system for their own operating system without charge. The limitation will affect those who build operating systems for small niche markets with limited or non-existent funding, since they may not be able to use a signed bootloader/kernel without paying. Having said that, again Fedora and, IMO surprisingly, Canonical may come to the rescue since using either as the base for the custom system should allow their signed boorloaders to be used.
I agree that the situation is far from ideal, but let's not make it a target for unwarrented FUD.
For the record, I'm one of those who would probably ultimately be caught by both scenarios outlined above, since I compile my own system AND I'm developing a niche Debian based ISO, so I'd rather secure boot never existed. Personally, since I build my own personal use systems, too, and it's extremely unlikely that motherboards as components will have secure boot enforced at all I will probably escape the worst of it, but I'm well aware that I'm in a minority.
I'm simply asking for objective contributions, rather than raising the red flag.