>>983830
Good to know, thanks.
>>983833
>>but what about OpenBSD!?
>Not relevant to a comparison of Linux distros.
Maybe not, but it can't hurt to include it. Whatever.
>Also, you are claiming that an OS needs to be idiot-proof in order to be secure.
No, but I will claim that it is misleading to simply say it ```is``` very secure if that only applies after you harden it manually.
Qubes is very likely to be extremely secure if used properly, but there is almost no benefit if someone doesn't adhere to the isolation principles and uses it like a normal OS. Yes, the user is the problem.
Consider Fedora on the other hand. IIRC, it has many of these security features ``enabled by default``, so if you use the OS in it's given state (which is a very likely scenario for people who hear that it is secure but are not experienced enough they need to compile an OS to get those benefits) then Fedora would be more secure for them. I guess "more secure" is a vague label for an OS, as "more secure as stock" and "can be hardened to be more secure" are disparate attributes.
>How the fuck would the installation of shit software by a user reflect poorly on the OS?
Because the shit software ``is`` the OS. The hardening extension is the secure part, which it seems is not a normal part of the OS. If they made it an obvious option through the install docs, that would be different. Hardened Gentoo =/= Gentoo. That's almost like saying Windows is secure because running Firefox/Chrome in a sandbox mitigate many attacks. The user's customization is secure, not the OS.
>You're an NPC Applefag
Try again.
>>Micro$oft's Fedora is more secure than Gentoo
>Is this what normalfags [implying] really believe?
Then it shouldn't be hard to prove me wrong by comparing the two, right? If you can provide a good case, I will happily switch to Gentoo.