Either support for secure boot or a graphical method to enable it. Arch wiki mentions the method to enable secure boot post install, but is every manjaro user expected to have enough know-how about it? Its a very simple incentive for new users to try fedora and ubuntu. Btw, i asked the same question before too, so I am linking it here.
I know one of the devs or moderators will simply answer ‘yes’ to my question above (that every manjaro user should be capable), but I would request them to give more thought. Its a good general purpose OS, but being handicapped by such a trivial limitation is simply unbecoming of it.
Also I know secure boot is evil etc, but the direction industry has taken has made it ever more integral, and it is here to stay
What does secure boot have to do with anything cheating-related?
anti-cheats in games. You will be blocked or game will not launch without secure boot. Linking the first result i get on searching in google Reddit - Dive into anything
Why would you need secure boot when Linux has no “anti-cheat” kernel driver? Make no sense here. Only Windows 11 is affected.
I don’t have Secure Boot, obviously, and I can play, for example right now, Dead By Daylight, on Proton (with Heroic Launcher), which has EAC. What are you talking about?
//EDIT after thread is closed: I still don’t see what the guy is talking about, which game on Linux requires secure boot? NONE to my knowledge so what is this thread about?
as it is supported to those who dare; to put the bootloader shims in place and quiet possibly automate it using a pacman hook, you are left with choices either to do that or if you dare not resort to enabling it in UEFI when you want game in windows
If one want to use secure boot it is necessary.
But you must understand that you are giving away control over your computing system.
It is - kind of - extended DRM (Digital Right Managment) - which is designed to make as much money as possible.
Next logical step is to use the TPM implementation to further exclude …
I personally dislike both secure boot and anti-cheats. But they are an evil that will stay, and are becoming more common by the day. You are repeating a popular opinion among most linux enthusiasts who do not game, but it is not amongst those who come through steam deck or through other channels of linux exposure related to gaming, and they are being excluded on a distro that is the best for gaming otherwise.
I would love if boycotting secureboot and other DRM stuff could take it away, but it is not happening. Ubuntu, fedora and derivatives have secure boot already, and more will follow. Individual users can boycott it, and that includes me, but all are not of the same opinion. A good OS should provide easy access to tools that allow maximum users to fulfil their needs. Those who wish to boycott it can still disable secure boot and not install games with privacy invasive anti-cheats.
GNU/Linux was never intended to be a gaming platform, and those who come here looking for a gaming OS are going to be badly disappointed.
Manjaro in particular was also never intended to be a hand-holding distribution for absolute novices, even though many of the people who post on this forum are absolute novices who don’t understand first thing about how a computer works.
As an Arch-derivative, Manjaro remains a very technical distribution, but the Manjaro developers have made it a little easier to use than Arch proper by adding a few extra tools of their own making, some (but not all) of which even come with a graphical user interface. But these additions alone do not suddenly transform an Arch-based GNU/Linux system into a distribution for absolute novices and/or gamers, nor are they intended to. There are plenty of other distributions with a far more elaborate set of graphically oriented administration tools, and several of those also come with Secure Boot support enabled out-of-the-box.
Secure Boot and — as @linux-aarhus already mentioned — TPM are intended to restrict the usage of an open hardware design and put it under the control of Microsoft, because Microsoft is on the UEFI committee, and unlike Microsoft’s biggest longtime competitor Apple, Microsoft did not have any hardware platform of their own. So it was Bill Gates’ ambition to seize control of the x86 platform and monopolize it in such a way that it would be difficult to run any operating system on x86 that wasn’t Microsoft-approved. As the matter of fact, the UEFI Shell utilizes the slightly modified syntax of the Windows command line, and UEFI executables even use the Windows binary format, as you can see below. 
[nx-74205:/dev/pts/3][/home/aragorn]
[aragorn] > file /boot/efi/EFI/boot/bootx64.efi
/boot/efi/EFI/boot/bootx64.efi: PE32+ executable (EFI application) x86-64 (stripped to external PDB), for MS Windows, 4 sections
[nx-74205:/dev/pts/3][/home/aragorn]
[aragorn] > _
Furthermore, Secure Boot is not all that secure, because it can and already has been cracked — even still fairly recently again — and its restrictive nature stands in direct juxtaposition to the very reasons why GNU/Linux was conceived, which was to offer the user a general-purpose UNIX-family operating system that respects the user’s freedom.
Therefore, demanding — and insisting, given that you’ve already brought up this topic before — that Manjaro would support Secure Boot without any user intervention and would thus restrict the freedom of its users just so as to placate the people who wish to play commercial games on an operating system that was never designed for that purpose is asinine.
Nevertheless, as @koshikas said, Secure Boot is supported if and only if you are willing to do the work yourself. The instructions on how to do so are available at the Arch Wiki. If you want to surrender your freedom to the proprietary software industry, then it is up to you to get your hands dirty.
You would want us to restrict the freedom of the majority of our users by having them opt out of Secure Boot rather than to have the minority of them voluntarily opt in just so you wouldn’t have to get your hands dirty in a technical distribution even though far less technical distributions with Secure Boot support do exist? No, thanks!
End of discussion — it has already been had before anyway, and with the same original poster.