@ThePlant nodds in agreement

I explicitly remember asking for permission to review #SubgraphOS and being given so under the precondition to not share that pre-alpha with anyone.
https://youtu.be/AAdzyCQdxvE

I think this situation is worse than the #PartnerNet #leaks of the #Xbox360...

OFC @micahflee did already dissect #SubgraphOS back then and AFAICT they did took notes and worked on fixing those things...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVsllZ7g7-I

@soulexpress nodds in agreement

• EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM!

Like there's a reason I only got a copy of #SubgraphOS as non-public alpha under the precondition to not redistribute and was allowed to preview it because that thing was unstable and had a lot of known issues the devs were working on to get fixed.

• It's not as if they weren't aware of those, but they also didn't want "#TechIlliterates" using it with a false belief in it being ready to use and trust in.

Not shure how #Subgraph evolved after #grsecurity decided to #paywall access to the #sourcecodes of said #patches and #tools cuz those were used in said distro as a means to harden it.

• But then again the #grsec devs seem to be so toxic, their entire Wikipedia Article got nuked and only an old archive version exists.

@dangillmor it's a pity there are not open source operating system "distributions" that vet "package maintainer" individuals for all of the thousands of software application packages that most people might actually need, who then function as gatekeepers to weed out bad software releases, not to mention imposters, from infiltrating a distribution system of cryptographically signed and QA'd software, that is verified to comply with "distribution" policies.

Some day, perhaps.

#Devuan
#MEPIS
#BodhiLinux
#LinuxMint
#PCLinuxOS
#TrustedBSD
#Tails
#SubgraphOS
#QubesOS
#AlpineLinux