I'm speculating here, but it could be due a poor first impression, as I
mentioned in my thread you linked. If there are messed up *really basic*
things right when you first install, it calls into question the other
decisions the distribution maintainers may have made elsewhere. Especially if
someone is stubbornly clinging to a non-user friendly choices (which it
sounds like is the case here). The ABSOLUTE BARE MINIUMUM that should be done
is warn people in the installer that "Oh, hey by the way, do you have other
OSs installed on this machine? Well don't plan on using them until you remove
the grub password, which by the way IS NOT your regular username and
password."
On a philosophical note, it would seem desirable that Trisquel can
demonstrate that going free (in the RMS/GNU sense of the word) will give you
more control over your system. This is one of the important tenets of the
free software movement. Taking away control over someone's boot partitions
right off the bat is almost a Microsoft trick (although they might nuke your
Debian install outright, instead of just nuking your bootloader).
Think of it this way, since Trisquel is closely related to Ubuntu, when you
do the install, are you giving your users more options, more freedom, than
Ubuntu? Or less?
