Yes

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.

Ubuntu font. Idk why but I like it.

PCs aren't secure. Linux default isnt secure. Kali has so many apps/tools installed by default that it isnt comparable to default Linux. It has massive attack surface and no security design, therefore calling it secure isn't accurate.

If no effort was put into the security design of an OS, why call it secure?

No, it is not a proxy for another search index/engine.

Yes, you can add Brave search to your other browsers.

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.

It isn't a secure operating system. It is a toolkit for pen testing and red team hackers. Definitely not a daily driver kind of OS.

Canonical, the owners of Ubuntu, love to steal open source projects. They'll help a project with development power, then force the contributors to sign a CLA (for an example see the fork of LXD called Incus). Canonical also uses and forces proprietary systems onto the user's, e.g. Snap uses the proprietary and hardcoded Canonical repository, which Ubuntu now defaults to using Snap for installing packages.

Side note, if it wasnt for Snap using a proprietary backend and also depending on AppArmor (generally regarded as a weaker MAC than SELinux), I would prefer Snap over Flatpak. It creates a better sandbox (aka the actually Security of the software), avoids sandbox escapes, blacklists against broad permissions (e.g. $HOME access), and Snap packages generally have stricter permissions (which determines the real-world security of Snap). Sandboxing is very important for Desktop (and server) security. Android is does the best job of this, but it would be nice if projects like Sydbox, Crablock, or Bubblejail were adopted and built-in to the package manager.

But even without any of the previously mentioned problems, I just think Fedora is a better OS. Fedora comes preconfigured with SELinux policies to confine system services they are quicker to adopt new technologies. Fedora is also a semi-rolling distro, meaning packages are quicker to get updated than on Ubuntu. Fedora stays FOSS, where as Ubuntu becomes more locked down. Also, the package Brace made by the developer of DivestOS is great for quickly hardening a Fedora system.

I heard that he was a scammer or pseudo privacy expert from other comments. I wouldn't recommend that phone. If you care about the privacy or security of your device, use DivestOS with a supported Pixel/OnePlus, or GrapheneOS with a Pixel. Only buy the phone new if you are super paranoid of some zero-day vulnerability being used on you. I recommend swappa.com because they have quality control, returns, and good prices for used devices (you can even get mint quality devices).

Comparison of Android ROMs: https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm

iodeOS has been behind on security updates often (still better security against unsophisticated attacks than Ubuntu but not a good ROM): https://divestos.org/pages/patch_history

YouTube is a monopoly. The reason no one really uses multiple platforms to upload videos at the same level as YouTube is because it was run for a long time at a loss to push out all competition. I have no simpthy.

Propaganda from the ruling class.