The reason we can still run Linux on our desktops and laptops today, is that Linux was already popular enough back when Secure Boot was specified, so that Microsoft could be convinced to allow Secure Boot to be disabled and/or user-specified keys to be enrolled (and also to sign the bootloader for Linux distributions which follow a specific set of criteria when Secure Boot is enabled). Had desktop Linux not been popular enough, Microsoft would have required all OEMs to not allow disabling Secure Boot or enrolling user-specified keys (as they later tried to do with ARM laptops).
In the present day, are alternative browsers popular enough that we can avoid the worst-case scenario? Do enough people compile these alternative browsers from source code (meaning each binary is slightly different) to make a difference?
I think Microsoft made it mandatory to allow disabling secureboot because they wanted their older OSs to work, didn't want devices getting bricked when a vendor poorly implemented it, and didn't want to get hit with another anti-trust suit. not necessarily in that order.
I've read that Surface ARM hardware had a secure boot that could not be disabled. This would make a lot sense; there was no legacy Windows for ARM to keep backwards compatibility for.
In the present day, are alternative browsers popular enough that we can avoid the worst-case scenario? Do enough people compile these alternative browsers from source code (meaning each binary is slightly different) to make a difference?