Unfortunately my 8gb RAM (for which 2gb is dedicated for the iGPU) isn't enough. FWIW, this system could technically run Windows (11) without any troubles.
I'm an absolute sucker for exquisitely hardened distros. Hence, distros like Qubes OS and Kicksecure have rightfully caught my interest. However, the former's hardware requirements are too harsh on the devices I currently own. While the latter relies on backports for security updates; which I'm not a fan of. Thankfully, there is also secureblue.
Contrary to the others, secureblue is built on top of an 'immutable' and/or atomic base distro; namely Fedora Atomic. By which:
It's protected against certain attacks.
Enables it to benefit from more recent advancements and developments that benefit security without foregoing robustness.
If security is your top priority, Qubes OS is the gold standard. However, secureblue is a decent (albeit inferior) alternative if you prefer current and/or 'immutable'/atomic distros.
I'm an absolute sucker for exquisitely hardened distros. Hence, distros like Qubes OS and Kicksecure have rightfully caught my interest. However, the former's hardware requirements are too harsh on the devices I currently own. While the latter relies on backports for security updates; which I'm not a fan of. Thankfully, there is also secureblue.
Contrary to the others, secureblue is built on top of an 'immutable' and/or atomic base distro; namely Fedora Atomic. By which:
It's protected against certain attacks.
Enables it to benefit from more recent advancements and developments that benefit security without foregoing robustness.
If security is your top priority, Qubes OS is the gold standard. However, secureblue is a decent (albeit inferior) alternative if you prefer current and/or 'immutable'/atomic distros.
What evidence supports your statement, given that it contradicts the overall results of tests conducted in the past year by both DJ Ware and Michael Larabel from Phoronix?
Extremely slow package manager (the most important one)
Fair. Though, IIRC, it's in the same order of magnitude as apt and zypper. But yeah; apk, pacman and xbps are definitely faster by a wide margin. Hopefully, dnf5 will be able to close the gap significantly.
confusing installer
I often hear this. But I'm not sure if I understand. Is it because Anaconda does not walk you (explicitly) through all parts of the installation (at least by default)? And, instead, chooses to give the user an overview (at some point) in which the user is expected to go over each one of them by themselves.
fast deprecation of important technologies and testing of new technologies on its users (making major upgrades risky)
Fair. I think this is the most legitimate concern. Thankfully, over the last two years, I have yet to bang my head against a brick wall for reasons related to this. But I understand why others are more reluctant based on Fedora's (less recent) track record.
Fedora's tendency to default to (potentially) premature software, can definitely be a legit reason to prefer other distros instead.
I'm a "(sweet) summer child" in that I've only been using Fedora for over two years now. Therefore, I haven't experienced the commonly cited 'shifts' that have caused many issues to other users. Regardless, I do (somewhat) understand.
Regarding wget2, I didn't even know that was a thing. Thank you for mentioning it! I have yet to understand why or how Fedora unanimously agreed to push that change.
To this day I notice that there is some skepticism with Btrfs, and I think it is because fedora also pushed it early.
This, however, I can't agree with. And perhaps you're conflating matters. Btrfs was not ready when it was first supported. However, Fedora was not an early adopter. They only defaulted to it in 2020. By contrast, AFAIK openSUSE was the first to default it in 2014. Heck, the next year it was defaulted by SLE as well. By the time Fedora did the same, the severe issues and instabilities were already ironed out. So, I'd attribute the scepticism towards Btrfs as the community's PTSD after many community members lost valuable data early in Btrfs' lifetime.
And more.
How? Please focus on the security merits.
If this is your reasoning to justify your earlier statement, please explain how this outdoes Qubes OS when it comes to security.
Btw, it seems you're conflating protection against forensics with a proper security model. In terms of security, TAILS does not provide anything remotely comparable to Qubes OS. Qubes OS is literally built differently. In case you enjoy tables.