This is just sensationalist security theater that’s been popular lately on social networking sites where the end result is to peddle their own programs as “safer”. Yes, every program written can have a backdoor/hidden but known vulnerability. Instead of focusing on things that can or cannot be proven, there are much better ways to think about computer safety, which is ultimately about trust.
All proprietary programs (programs which you cannot control or take responsibility of) are inherently untrustworthy. You are in an unequal relationship with the program’s author(s) and this can lead to many abuses being committed (i.e. not all proprietary programs are malicious, but all proprietary programs are capable of being malicious in a way that non-proprietary software cannot).
Operating systems are a collection of hardware, software, and communities. Currently, there is no commercially available hardware that is completely within your control whether that be through non-auditable firmware blobs, soldered components, hardware exclusion lists (change one component and the computer refuses to boot or the “Windows is not supported on your device” scheme, etc). There is an extensive canon of free programs, from the kernel level all the way to the desktop. There are also strong communities that pursue different interests. These are all more tangible aspects to think about that do more benefit than being fearful of the unknown.
Microsoft Windows is a operating system that runs on closed-down hardware, gives no autonomy to its users in terms of the programs they run, and is hoarded by capitalists. When using Windows, your ability to negotiate control is severely limited, and even then, not everyone has the means to circumvent this control. Thus Windows and by extension Microsoft are able to abuse their position of power.
Ubuntu is far from this model but it’s not perfect. You can decide whether you’re willing to trust Ubuntu and whether to leave Ubuntu if you feel you have been mistreated because with Ubuntu: you have more choice in the matter.
Short Answer
I don’t personally trust running Ubuntu as a desktop OS anymore after they moved their app distribution to snap, whose server backend is proprietary the last time I checked. Ubuntu uses largely the same software that other distributions like Fedora and Arch or Debian do. I trust those distributions more, so I’ll use them, because at the end of the day 95% of “Linux distros” use the same collection of programs, maybe that’s an issue in of itself that should be discussed more, but please don’t worry about “the backdoor” anymore.
Long answer:
This is just sensationalist security theater that’s been popular lately on social networking sites where the end result is to peddle their own programs as “safer”. Yes, every program written can have a backdoor/hidden but known vulnerability. Instead of focusing on things that can or cannot be proven, there are much better ways to think about computer safety, which is ultimately about trust.
All proprietary programs (programs which you cannot control or take responsibility of) are inherently untrustworthy. You are in an unequal relationship with the program’s author(s) and this can lead to many abuses being committed (i.e. not all proprietary programs are malicious, but all proprietary programs are capable of being malicious in a way that non-proprietary software cannot).
Operating systems are a collection of hardware, software, and communities. Currently, there is no commercially available hardware that is completely within your control whether that be through non-auditable firmware blobs, soldered components, hardware exclusion lists (change one component and the computer refuses to boot or the “Windows is not supported on your device” scheme, etc). There is an extensive canon of free programs, from the kernel level all the way to the desktop. There are also strong communities that pursue different interests. These are all more tangible aspects to think about that do more benefit than being fearful of the unknown.
Microsoft Windows is a operating system that runs on closed-down hardware, gives no autonomy to its users in terms of the programs they run, and is hoarded by capitalists. When using Windows, your ability to negotiate control is severely limited, and even then, not everyone has the means to circumvent this control. Thus Windows and by extension Microsoft are able to abuse their position of power.
Ubuntu is far from this model but it’s not perfect. You can decide whether you’re willing to trust Ubuntu and whether to leave Ubuntu if you feel you have been mistreated because with Ubuntu: you have more choice in the matter.
Short Answer
I don’t personally trust running Ubuntu as a desktop OS anymore after they moved their app distribution to snap, whose server backend is proprietary the last time I checked. Ubuntu uses largely the same software that other distributions like Fedora and Arch or Debian do. I trust those distributions more, so I’ll use them, because at the end of the day 95% of “Linux distros” use the same collection of programs, maybe that’s an issue in of itself that should be discussed more, but please don’t worry about “the backdoor” anymore.