... but people in that group are a bit of a lost cause.
touche. I don't think the existence of other threats is a reason to dismiss this one. And I don't think simply prohibiting running random executables is sufficient as it isn't 'most users' who are switching to Linux. The people likely to switch to Linux are also the people likely to want to run programs that aren't yet distributed in repos. I can imagine a scenario where the malware is hidden in a program hosted on a custom flatpak repo and requires permissions for normal operation that'd make flatseal ineffective for stopping the malware.
The ideal anti-virus in my mind would ignore programs installed from official repos and on access scan ones installed from anywhere else. It'd also keep track of critical vulnerabilities to give you a heads up about updating your system.
#8 reawakened my nervousness about the lack of virus protection on Linux. With every milestone we celebrate it becomes more likely that malicious people target desktop Linux with their malware, and I don't think the "Linux is inherently secure" mentality helps. I hope clamav's on access scanner is fixed and improved so it becomes commonplace before there's some big newsworthy scandal.
Are they friends? If they are friends sure, they're evil. Although if that were the case I think the person calling them evil (and the linked blog) would have included that front and center rather than the definition of open source stuff.
I've clicked through the links and the most 'evil' thing they did seems to be using a non-mainstream open source licence? Evil is getting contracted by Israel. Prohibiting other companies from profiting off your work isn't evil.
Edit: And they hosted an interview with Curtis Yarvin. That's bad, but still doesn't warrant calling them evil.
I'm stealing this