I won't send them a gift but if Fedora's the only distribution to support Secure Boot, then it's the only one that I'll recommend to friends (independently from installing and providing support for Debian servers at some of my jobs) because I don't want to have to tell them "to install Linux or even test Linux from a CD without installing it, I'll have to turn off 'Secure Boot' on your computer"; they'll most likely say "no" anyway after hearing that.
Hello Tom,of course you don't have to tell it them *this* way: yours is just sounding as the perfect marketing argument pro MS: «You don't want to turn your computer insecure, right?». It's too funny that this kind of reasoning is turning (from your friends' point of view) the *real security* concept upside down: Windows mimics the secure-OS part :-) forcing other OSs to bow to it, whereas Debian is thought to be the insecure one. This is clearly made possible because of power and money, not trust and freedom.
Please note also that, forcing this "secure boot" thing, MS is evidently trying to monopolize the "security" concept, making it a MS-related term, putting -again- marketing before facts. Not fair at all - again.
All the best, Andrew