@uman i await your counterarguments to my counterargument and i also await counterarguments to other points i made like gaming and agentic workflows!!!
Before making any contribution, please read the docs: Qubes OS 4.3.1 documentation — Qubes OS 4.3.1 documentation
The first should be to read the Code of conduct before engaging with anyone.
I think the problem here is that every single file in dom0 is a potential tool for a patient attacker. It is not obvious.
Even if a theme file does not exploit the system by itself, it could contain a hidden payload which breaks security of the OS. This is why dom0 contains little outside artwork. Even though binary files are the simplest place to hide things, even text or xml configuration could be used this way.
Security and aesthetics cannot be seen as independent activities.
I fully recommend to have a read about the multi-year project by unknown persons to put a backdoor in ssh. IIRC, a datafile used for testing held binary exploit payload data. It was already being used before it was discovered:
Ah, yes. The security vs. vanity argument has replaced security vs. usability. Wonderful.
If you’re using Qubes and are that concerned about how others judge you by the aesthetics of your computing environment… maybe some things are more important to you than the security that Qubes offers.
If not, Qubes happens to be an open source volunteer effort and as you so passionately point out it is not comparatively well-funded. Turn your passion into constructive contributions to the code base, or pay someone to do that on your behalf. One thing that doesn’t turn feature requests into code: exclamation points.
self-promo, vulgarity, 6.2MB GIF
Dream big! It’s no individual’s fault this is hard!
And AI Software Fuck Off! I gtg, but (IMO) LLMs “as we know them” (& projects embracing them) will play no part in the building of a flexible foundation that allows such customization to be as achievable & secure as a lay-person might expect (bc they drive away detail & community oriented contributors).
In the context of this thread, awaiting counterarguments to counterarguments and other counterarguments does not seem to be a very productive use of time.
Impatience is not very helpful when trying to understand the other guys perspective.
Ricing
QubesOS looks ugly with the XFCE, yes. Past the eye-bleed period, I
stopped noticing the ugliness.
[… 3 lines elided]
Gaming on qubes
[… 3 lines elided]
Agreed with gaming, but for with the local GPU resources. I have an RTX
4070 on my QubesOS system and I have no idea how I can make use of it
for gaming on QubesOS (would love to play Cyberpunk 2077) – and I don’t
have time to read thousand messages on the “gaming on qubes os” forum
thread, so…
Agentic workflows
[… 3 lines elided]
Agreed with agentic workflows. QubesOS has great isolation between
domains. We can make many agents roam free in their own qube-fiefdoms.
But nobody knows/does/advertises/demonstrates this.
Also QubesOS needs better explainers for the new Ansible support for
setting up and maintaining qubes.
Off-topic note on the xz backdoor attempt
On an off-topic note, the xz vulnerability was not introducing “a backdoor in ssh” as you write, it was exploiting a “systemd-friendly modified sshd” version that various distributions were compiling specifically to accommodate systemd! It’s all in the Wikipedia article you linked…
So for example, sshd in Void Linux was never vulnerable, because Void is using RunIt, not systemd.
The correct take-away is that systemd is horrible.
There’s a big “but” to the way this discussion went, and I would like to direct especially menaby’s (multiple accounts?) attention to this matter:
Even though this is an open-source project, there is still hierarchy involved. There is a large area where people are connected on an equal basis, like a rhizome – the community. But the leadership of the project is hierarchic, like a tree, and has the final say in things that relate to the stock “Qubes OS” we all know. They decided to ship this with a certain DE as default, make @marmarta the person in charge for UI/UX and her unique way of seeing things determines the stock UX/UI. With ITL being a private company, there really and ultimately is little one can do about influencing their decisions directly but purchasing it.
Separate the two things – you can always create a competing, easy-to-use app to knead Qubes OS into the way you want to have it. But be aware and kind when criticizing the project’s leadership directly. In the end, it’s a private for-profit company that donates their resources to the public.
I didn’t fully understand this split which lead me to posting a thread that I now hesitate to read the replies to. It got me emotional.