Isn't most of the security holes still there if used arch and installed the packages yourself. A lot of people complained ssh had security issues in omarchy because it used the default settings. That would still be the same on arch?
Arch doesn't market itself as a newbie-friendly opinionated secure-by-default distro.
An Arch package having less-than-ideal default settings is pretty normal: the user is expected to read the manpages and the Arch wiki when making any alterations to their system. They guide you towards making it secure, but if you want to leave it insecure because of reasons then Arch isn't going to stop you from shooting your own foot.
Sometimes yeah, but clearly not in this case, if you took the time to actually read the article.
You don't ask entire ministries and public operators to formulate a migration plan from Windows to Linux with a relatively short deadline just for negotiation purposes or just for the fun of it, you do that once you're committed to actually migrating.
This is not just a pilot project or some local administration doing an experiment, it's new country-wide policy enforced from the top, hardly a "negotiation strategy".
> I've seen multiple countries do exactly that, then quietly drop it after a few years
I generally consider myself well read when it comes to Linux, Europe and governments, and I can't recall a single country that announced a country-wide requirement to produce a report for how to move to Linux, deadline ~6 months, what countries are you thinking about here?
I know in France, Germany and Spain have had a lot of local efforts through the years, but never at this sort of scope, so really interested what exactly you're talking about here.
I don't think so. Having worked on a similar thing in my country, and the effort is monumental.
When doing this in a company, making technical people appreciate free software and making lasting changes is hard enough. When doing this with non-technical people, everything becomes exponentially harder.
reply