> The main differences were: 1) I was more technically savvy and thus not as likely to install something obviously dangerous and 2) One just wasn’t very likely

> The main differences were: 1) I was more technically savvy and thus not as likely to install something obviously dangerous and 2) One just wasn’t very likely to run into a repo impacted by supply chain compromise or somesuch. Those same behaviors today are pretty risky in comparison, leading to threads like this one. Yes, and I would add 3) there was no meaningful malware made for Linux back then, because it wasn't a target for malware authors. Otherwise you (and I!) would have been hit. I didn't understand half the stuff I installed on my Linux box back then, and many install instructions were positively arcane. > To me, the point of running Linux or really any desktop OS is to allow me to go beyond walled gardens. My brother is a non-technical artist/creator type. If he relied only on the system package manager, he might as well use an iPad. Fully agreed! Furthermore, anyone using Linux back then would have found your opinion entirely uncontroversial. The point of Linux back then was freedom to do whatever. Gardens -- even non-walled gardens -- were not the point.