Signing was designed for security purposes which is the only reason where certificate revocation has been used to date. There seems to be a lot of FUD here but without any actual hard examples.

But it prevents doing what you just said above :

> Developers can ask users for their admin password, sudo to root and largely do whatever they want including adding kernel extensions and drivers.

Having a technical means to make distribution of a driver awkward is quite a few steps short of forbidding it.

But they only use these power to shut out malware. Not to nix software they don't like.

Windows drivers need to be signed as well, whats the problem?

But not by Microsoft, you can opt to obtain WHQL certification for your driver and have MS sign them - but it's also acceptable to get a code signing cert from any trusted CA.

Apple controls all the keys for macOS, AFAIK there's not even an option to add additional CA's for code-signing trust. To get around this you have to completely disable SIP, and it's rather stupid to tell users they must disable a well-meaning (if somewhat poorly implemented) security feature to install a kext because Apple doesn't like you (no knowledge if this has happened, but it can, and I don't care for that).