3 ms·

By this definition no operating system Google releases will be secure to you. I think it would be a more productive discussion if you could argue about security

By this definition no operating system Google releases will be secure to you. I think it would be a more productive discussion if you could argue about security ignoring that you have to trust the person who wrote your operating system or designed your cpu.

bandrami 1y ago
The point of open source is I don't have to trust the person who wrote it
- omnifischer 1y ago
  It works well for you.. but for average person. No. As a 20 year old linux user, I do often use ChromeOS or ChromeOSflex. Just works. Beautiful UI. No more pain with webcam or wifi drivers - Yes, these have improved by still one has the pain of dropped packets (realtek wifi) etc. guaranteed 10 hour battery life. With ChromeOS I just get 4 or 5 second - update - immutable OS. Fedora Silverblue is coming up but still not there.
  - ulrikrasmussen 1y ago
    Congrats, you are trading freedom for some convenience.
- _carbyau_ 1y ago
  You don't have to. Which is good! But in practical terms there is a lot of trusting of someone/their-code going on. Unless you are reading/understanding it all. I trust linux more than windows. But I've never read a line of it...
  - ivell 1y ago
    I think their point is that the source being open keeps the developers more honest. Of course there have been supply chain attacks in open source, but that is more probable to be found out than closed source ones. In short, auditability improves security.
  - wkat4242 1y ago
    The thing is, there's always someone who does read it or inspect changes. It will surface soon enough if untoward things are happening.
    - _carbyau_ 1y ago
      And that is what is being trusted. Not "the code is readable therefore trustable". More "the code is readable, therefore I trust multiple someones, somewhere will read it or has read it and if they have a concern they will voice it". Is it the greatest thing to trust? No, but like a lot of things in life, it's the best of the practical options.

bandrami 1y ago

The point of open source is I don't have to trust the person who wrote it

omnifischer 1y ago
It works well for you.. but for average person. No. As a 20 year old linux user, I do often use ChromeOS or ChromeOSflex. Just works. Beautiful UI. No more pain with webcam or wifi drivers - Yes, these have improved by still one has the pain of dropped packets (realtek wifi) etc. guaranteed 10 hour battery life. With ChromeOS I just get 4 or 5 second - update - immutable OS. Fedora Silverblue is coming up but still not there.
- ulrikrasmussen 1y ago
  Congrats, you are trading freedom for some convenience.
_carbyau_ 1y ago
You don't have to. Which is good! But in practical terms there is a lot of trusting of someone/their-code going on. Unless you are reading/understanding it all. I trust linux more than windows. But I've never read a line of it...
- ivell 1y ago
  I think their point is that the source being open keeps the developers more honest. Of course there have been supply chain attacks in open source, but that is more probable to be found out than closed source ones. In short, auditability improves security.
- wkat4242 1y ago
  The thing is, there's always someone who does read it or inspect changes. It will surface soon enough if untoward things are happening.
  - _carbyau_ 1y ago
    And that is what is being trusted. Not "the code is readable therefore trustable". More "the code is readable, therefore I trust multiple someones, somewhere will read it or has read it and if they have a concern they will voice it". Is it the greatest thing to trust? No, but like a lot of things in life, it's the best of the practical options.