Never ask it to do regex. Holy fuck, thank God I was just doing it for funsies as a test of local LLMs. I got it to go into an infinite loop trying to figure out what I asked.

Linux just isnt transparent about some things. Beginners most have problems when they use a GUI tool and then have to still edit a file. Like dirt example, adding a new drive using GUI disk utility and then sometime in the future disconnecting the drive and being forced into emergency mode.

I had a friend jump ship from Windows and they said that Debian felt barebones. I personally dont have any problem with it, I use it all the time for VMs, server, and I used to main it. I still think it is missing a lot of user-friendly small things that i never noticed on my own because I am very comfortable with Linux.

For work, you could also try Fedora Workstation or Linux Mint Debian Edition. Debian is pretty barebones, but if that isnt a bother then do whatever.

I watched the video. Yes, if your sandbox config is weak then it will allow sandbox escapes. I agree the should default should be a secure sandbox. Bubblewrap offers the opportunity to shoot yourself in the foot. Look into the others tools I mentioned if you want to see different implementations. Sydbox is the one I think is the most interesting.

Hardening is not useless, but it doesnt fix the architectural issues with Linux and its outdated threat model. That article says the same thing. It isnt an all-or-nothing situation, hardening still improves Linux security. Projects exist like SELinux, Bubblewrap, Crablock, Sydbox, and Landlock. Efforts to harden GNU/Linux have been made, like Kicksecure (Debian) and Secureblue (Fedora Silverblue), which protect against many threat vectors, but not perfect obviously.

Both Firefox and Chromium support native Wayland.

Also, this might lead you in the right direction for remote Wayland apps: https://github.com/wayland-transpositor/wprs

I am not a troll. You don't need to be an ass.

Just because a system doesnt have a CVE doesn't make it secure. It needs proper exploit mitigations. Read why Linux isn't secure here.. The article is written by the lead developer of Whonix OS (Security hardened Debian with a focus on anonymity). If you had checked out any of the references from my previous comments you would have learned more about why I have this opinion.

Kali isn't any more secure than regular Debian, while also having a larger attack surface, and no kernel hardening, protecting of GUI, or application isolation. What makes it "secure"?

My point exactly. A large attack surface means less secure. My point was that Kali isn't focused on being a secure OS. It is all about the tools. Even without a vulnerability, a secure OS should protect against unknowns.

Operating systems can function very different. When creating software (like video games) the developer has to understand or use software dependencies which interact with the OS in a number of specific (OS dependent) ways. Stuff like where is app/user data stored, how to connect to the internet, how to display stuff on the screen (2D), how to display complex 3D geometry on the screen fast (3D graphics acceleration), where the host OS stores shared libraries (and what kind of libraries can the software expect to always be available), what security restrictions the host OS has, what filesystem the host OS uses, how to access the keyboard and mouse, how to interact with the kernel (very important).

Since Windows and Linux are so very different, built for different purposes by different developers, it is impossible to take a Windows exe and run it on Linux.

These days, the WINE project, with help from Valve's fork Proton, is able to run basically any Windows game on Linux with similar performance (if not better because Linux is lighter to run than Windows). It does this by creating a environment for the software/game that provides all of the OS stuff Windows software expects and translating it to Linux specific things.

TLDR: Linux is very different from Windows. Software meant for Windows won't work natively on Linux (since everything is different). For Windows software to work on Linux, the WINE translates all the Linux specific OS stuff and creates an environment for the Windows software that feels like Windows. Most things work with WINE except exceedingly complex stuff, like browsers which have native Linux versions anyways.

Linux Mint is built on top of Ubuntu, which itself was a fork of Debian. Ubuntu is not something I would call a "clean base". It is clunky, slow to adopt new technologies, and very (Canonical) opinionated. Linux Mint actively works against its Ubuntu base by removing Snap and other Canonical weirdness.

Tumbleweed and Leap offer the option to add or remove ANY package from your system before you even install it through their GUI installer, actually 2 GUI package choosers for either simple or advanced users. I don't think it is accurate to suggest that Linux Mint is minimalist with its packages, especially when comparing to openSUSE distros.

I will not argue against Linux Mint being user friendly, it is pretty good. But "not bloated", especially when comparing against openSUSE, is inaccurate.

How is Linux Mint less bloated? Linux Mint also suffers from poor Wayland support and isnt a (semi-)rolling release distro like Fedora or Tumbleweed. I wouldn't recommend to anyone other than people who are tech iliterate. Even then, I would still suggest VanillaOS or Fedora Workstation. I used Mint as my daily driver for a year and it was fine, nothing amazing.

Bazzite is a good distro, I convinced a friend to move to Linux from Windows 10 and Bazzite was the only one that worked well with their nvidia hardware.