Because you make it that. Its political for you but for me, no.

Ok Stalin

I’ve always got help, and the moderators are really nice.

This is unrelated. You want to familiarize yourself with the concept of OS integrity and how it is different from data encryption. You can have a passphrase that encrypts your data alongside having access to these hardware features.

It has very minimal code and its implemented in a robust manner. Unlike UEFI and the desktop implementation of secure boot, it does work well and it has not yet been exploited on pixels. Its way better to have any kind of OS integrity check than none.

Switzerland be W Rizz Skibidi af ngl 🤪

Yes

Removed by mod

If you’re an adult, and you’re interested in children’s romance thats the same issue. In fact, all content directed towards older audences featuring this kind of stuff, is directed to, and made by pedos.

The downwoters should be investigated.

This is still not a reason to automatically grant them. This permission model is fundamentally flawed. Besides, the CLI doesn’t even show these.

Also. Maintaining snap packages are easier for developers, and companies, therefore they are more likely to distribute apps on Linux to begin with.

Its only worse than not having it at all in the sense of giving users a false sense of security. Imagine if apps on mobile could decide what permissions they want automatically granted without the user opting in. The sandbox HAS to be enforced by default to be good. And the other issue with flatpak is the security, which we had several problems with in the past. On the same note, people criticise snap but its a much more competent solution from a technical standpoint regarding security and since people get all their apps from flathub anyways, the “propreitary” backend is mostly irrelevant. And before anyone says “snap store had malware hosted” that is not an issue with the format itself but the infrastructure.

flatkill.org

None. This person doesn’t know what they are talking about and they try to discredit the project based on their personal views and demonize the dev team.

Again, you demonstrate that you don’t have the sufficient knowledge. There is no commerical device with open-source firmware. “Security Requirements” are not some kind of marketing bullshit as you seem to think. Graphene’s can be found here: https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices

I doubt you understand what any of them mean, since you seemingly think Windows 11 requirements are just random things that are just there to hurt you.

You thinking that Stock Google devices are more secure than GOS simply shows that you fundamentally lack the understanding of how things work. They are built on the same core but Graphene has massively reduced attack surface and fewer ways to exploit remotely. And then we didn’t even talk about the hardened kernel and such.

I wouldn’t try to discredit projects I don’t know anything about if I were you.

It does not “ship” them. They are available at your option. Other solutions to solve the google problem such as MicroG have/had several security issues. My favourite was when they leaked user passwords.

By this logic rpiOS sucks because its only supported on Raspberry PIs. Only Pixel hardware meets the security requirements of Graphene.

You really have 0 understanding on how all this works 😭

Name only one reason that is relevant from a technical standpoint.