I think that when we walk about security (and privacy!) the question that needs to be asked together is "against who?".
Yes, phones have stronger security requirements, but why are they being secured against people using them? :)
Yes, phones have stronger security requirements, but why are they being secured against people using them? :)
If phones were more open, we'd be free to mod our own games and back up our own save files, but we'd have to live with every random crap app we download being able to take over the whole machine permanently any time.
Some publishers actually did remove the DRM just for the Deck version proving that DRM maybe isn't all that necessary when there's a will and manufacturer that doesn't bow down to ridiculous requirements :)
A few anticheat engines support specifically Steam Deck after working with Valve, but even then each individual game developer has to opt into it. (For example: Destiny 2 uses EasyAntiCheat which is Deck-compatible but Bungie still refuse to whitelist it on Deck/Steam OS, and warn you may get banned if you try to sidestep the block)
Modern DRMs like Denuvo actually do tend to work in Proton/Wine (aka Steam OS’s compatibility layer) because they’re a wrapper around the game instead of a driver/debugger+game setup.
It's possible to give the user full control and the ability to give apps more permissions, while still sandboxing apps by default. Consider, for example, flatpak, which can make the host filesystem totally invisible to apps but also allows the user to pass in files via the file picker or to totally expose paths by overriding its filesystem context.
To be fair, even Android apps are reasonably locked down while still making it possible to install a proscribed emulator or Firefox or whatever
Which is why I stopped playing AAA games. I'm fine with avoiding them and having a machine I can actually control.
Mac is a bit ahead of the other two, but gnu/linux (as opposed to “android linux”) is just insanely unsecure.
This isn't a property of GNU/Linux. It is very possible to have a highly secure Linux setup. That's not the way most distros operate, though, because highly secure setups tend to be user-hostile (which is the essential conundrum being talked about here, really).
Are these not adults? If not, is it the responsibilty of manufacturers to limit them, or the responsibility of their caretakers?
Second, that's an extremely weak argument and I question if it's being made in good faith. But in case you are: the responsibility is on the manufacturer to make a safe product. That's why we have regulations on consumer product safety. You can't sell certain dangerous chemicals. You can't sell plastics with BPAs in them. Et cetera.
The consumer, when they have the product, also has their own responsibility to look out for their own safety. But that doesn't make it ok to give them something dangerous, especially if it's something that contains dangers most people don't even understand or know about, like malware. (Most people are "aware" of malware, but they have no idea how it works or how to protect themselves from it.)
Keeping it in the kitchen, I'd say it's more like an Instant Pot that only lets you cook with Instant Pot Approved Recipe Packs. That way you'll never have food poisoning, or so says the marketing, and that's legit great novices! But if that's the only imduction cookpot available, something feels very off.
As for kids, parents are responsible for their use of stoves, cars, knives, etc. All are safe, until misused. I guess I'd like a clear line for where things are nerfed. And admit I might disagree with said line.
They're not. They're being secured against malicious actors who can convince grandma to install a rootkit or bitcoin miner on her PC.
Unfortunately, that makes it less convenient and powerful for me to use, but I mostly don't need the power