I have a feeling this is just looking for a clever way to say “but Linux isn’t as secure as everyone thinks”, which sure, yes. But also, not many people, especially knowledgeable people, are claiming that Linux is “secure”.
And when it comes to “privacy friendly” that depends so much on what flavour of Linux you are using (Ubuntu? a minimal Arch? Tails?) that it’s not really something you can make broad statements about.
Kinda. They are better than most, but don’t score that well on Ethical Consumer’s grading. (I could look up why, if anyone’s interested.)
And while they do offer free repair, which is wonderful and something i genuinely command them for doing, the results can be hit or miss. I had a pair of jeans with pretty standard areas worn out come back from a repair with a massive piece of mismatched denim covering almost the entire upper part of the pants. Unwearable. I ended up having to pay a local shop to redo the repair properly. And the Patagonia customer rep didn’t seem to see the problem with the repair and offered… 15% off my next order.
Suse is a lot smaller than Red Hat. Amazon with their Amazon Linux rebuild of RHEL (is that still the case?) are auch larger danger to Red Hat than Suse.
Oracle is a nasty piece of work of a company, and also just push a RHEL clone (“Unbreakable Linux”, hence the Red Hat shirts “Unfakeable Linux”).
Oh no. Can we please stop pushing (Open)PGP / GPG?
Not really. Do you know how many proprietary, company-specific extensions and modules there are of the Linux kernel out there?
Loads of companies choose not to contribute their stuff back upstream. I don’t know why the NSA did originally in the case of SELinux, but I would guess it had to do with transparency, national defense and not carrying the burden of a module / fork solo. They were also not the only contributors even early on, according to the Wikipedia page
Also, if I recall correctly, there was no other option for MAC back them (no AppArmor or Tomoyo).