I disagree, there are many resources for making and distributing android reproducible builds, including third-party F-Droid repos like IzzyOnDroid mentioned in my previous link.

And to my knowledge there is no technical requirement that F-Droid actually needs to build OR sign packages on behalf of anyone... I haven't seen any actual official rationale listed for it, but I assume one of the main reasons is convenience for the developers so they don't have to provide their own builds and deal with signing/losing keys.

I understand that the risk of problems can be somewhat mitigated in F-Droid by using reproducible builds, but I don't consider that sufficient for the most privacy-conscious users because:

• reproducible builds are not required by F-Droid

• it is not made clear to the user that a particular package even supports reproducible builds

• the verification of reproducible builds is not made plainly visible somewhere publicly if at all

• a user can still easily be misled by a one-off rogue package that is NOT reproducible, due to the previous point

• independent verifications of those builds reliably made by others are not common

Conversely I stay clear of F-Droid as they build and sign packages on behalf of the original developers, adding yet another point of injection for malicious code or supply chain attacks.

In my experience... not really. I would say SDL makes the task of writing controller support code within your own applications easier and higher-level, but in reality it still has not much to do with "drivers" (I assume you mean kernel modules), which the kernel and OS stack already provide multiple unified interfaces for with things like jsdev/evdev/udev/hidapi, regardless of how you access those subsystems (via SDL or otherwise).

ah yes, that short term Constitution that never held up /s

They might have pure motives but I have to wonder just how useful that is realistically. The rest of the world does not seem keen on following in their spirit.

some people like them and others don't... both have their own reasons... not sure what other info you are looking for?

no it's part of the physical hardware design

RISC-V has already been ruined by a zillion proprietary vendor extensions.

Right, I'm talking about like periodic or real-time scanning and alerting, which DISM/SFC on windows does.

I think it's absurd that most distros have no tools whatsoever for doing regular checksums of their own files. Windows certainly got that part right IMO.

prop 65 warnings are indeed useless

They also openly use youtube for distributing passwords and pastebin links to such content. I have seen multiple channels from a specific country (starts with I) that does this, sometimes going so far as to flash a single letter of the password at a time throughout innocent-looking childrens videos, with the encrypted pastebin link on the last video that requires the full password to unlock. Some others on a site I will not name have been trying to report these channels for several days (they have actually been operating for years with millions of views) but youtube isn't doing anything. Only company who has done anything was mediafire for removing some actual content.