Comment by JCattheATM

> You refuse to provide any references.

Why is there a need for references? Do you not understand how VMs work? Do you dispute that software running in the VM can be vulnerable?

> You also reply to my references with shallow dismissals with no substance presenting that as facts ("Not only do your links not support your exaggerated claims at all")

Because your 'references' don't support your claims, it's that simple. You can't just copy and paste links and act like you have provided evidence when the links don't match. Your claim doesn't appear on the Bubblewrap github page at all.

> Yet your original claim is that Flatpac is similarly secure and you failed to explain how it would protect from the same problems.

Vulnerable software running in a Bubblewrap sandbox and in a Qubes VM are both similarly vulnerable to software vulnerabilities, and it is unlikely an attacker would be able to escape the sandbox or the VM. I grant that escaping the sandbox is easier and more common, but not by much.

Your first key point was that Bubblewrap vulnerabilities happen all the time, and you've yet to support that. The only 'reference' you provided was to the Bubblewrap github page.

> They do not exist, only open-weight ones do.

And of course you don't trust anything that isn't FLOSS, right?

Still: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apertus_(LLM)