Yes, I should not have said "impossible": nothing is ever impossible to breach. All you can donis to make a breach more expensive to accomplish.
Those separate tpm chips are getting rare... most of the time they are build into the CPU (or firmware) nowadays. That makes sniffing harder, but probably opens other attack vectors.
Anyway: Using a TPM chip makes it more expensive to extract your keys than not using such a chip. So yoj win by using one.
A TPM is a very slow and dumb chip: It can hash data somebody sends to it and it can encrypt and decrypt data slowly. That's basically it. There is no privacy concern there that I can see. That chip can not read or write memory nor talk to the network.
Together with early boot code in the firmware/bootloader/initrd and later user space that chip can do quite a few cool things.
That code will use the TPM to measure data (create a hash) it loads before transfering control over and then unlock secrets only if the measurements match expected values. There is no way to extract that key on any system with different measurements (like a different computer, or even a different OS on the same computer). I find that pretty interesting and would love to use that, but most distributions do not offer that functionality yet :-(
Using the TPM to unlock the disks is just as secure as leaving the booted computer somewhere. If you trust the machine to not let random people log in, then TPM-based unlocking is fine. If you do not: Stay away.
Extracting the keys locked to an TPM is supposed to be impossible, so you do not need to worry about somebody stealing your keys. That alone makes TPMs very interesting... your own little FIDO tocken build right intomyour machine:-)
"They" did not go anywhere yet. This is a proposal, nothing more. It will take serious discussions over years to get this into C++.
Prominent figures already said they prefer safety profiles as a less intrusive and more C++ approach at conferences It will be fun to watch this and the other safety proposals going forward.
Well, its a brand new standard library. A fresh start.
Read the proposal: Lifetimes annotations, the rust standard library (incl. basic types like Vec, ARc, ...), first class tuples, pattern matching, destructive moves, unsafe, it is all in there.
The proposal is really to bolt on Rust to the side of C++, with all the compatibility problems that brings by necessity.
Not only that: It protects your data. The Unix security model is unfortunately stuck in the 1970s: It protects users from each other. That is a wonderful property, but in todays world you also need to protect the users from the applications they are running: Anything running as your user has access to all your data. And on most computer systems the interesting data is the one the users out there: Cryptogrqphic keys, login information, financial information, ... . Typically users are much more upset to loose their data than about some virus infecting the OS files, those are trivial to fix.
Running anything as anlther user stops that application from having access to most of your data.
The same happens with any of the new immutable distributions. It's just less effort as you do not need to do the nix configuration dance anymore.
Any of the many immutable distros (vanilla os, fedora silverblue, bluefin, aeon, endless os, pure os, ...) will all obviously work.
Most of your customizations will live in your home directory anyway, so the details of the host OS do not matter too much. As long as it comes with the UI you like, you will be mostly fine. And yku said you like gnome, that installs many apps from flathub anyway and they work just fine from there.
For development work you just set up a distrobox/toolbox container and are ready to go with everything you need. I much prefer that over working on the "real system" as I can have different environments for different projects and do not have to polute my system with all kinds of dependencies that are useless to the functionality of my system.
NixOS is ofmcourse also an option and is quasi-immutable, but it is also much more complicated to manage.
Those evil companies block random users, just because their government made some laws about it.
I'd go for open source projects. They usually have bigger code bases and good practices, that they enforce on their contributors with code reviews and such.
It's a good way to get feedback on your code, something miss out on personal projects and get much less of in university and corporate projects.
Github login does not help much... devs are on github, not on random forgjo instances. That's where they see your project. Github is also where they put their fork of your project when they play with it. They will write comments using github markdown and won't care whether that renders correctly or not in your forge.
And it is where they will report issues and open a PR. It is annoying, but it is how it is. When you ask them to open the PR elsewhere they complain sinde they need to set up an account there and copy ssh key and similar things. You need a very dedicated contributor to go through with all that.... especially if it is just a few lines of drive-by fixes.
My coworker used it till his HDD broke, taking his key into data heaven. The repository is still online thanks to radicale, but he has no way to ever get push access to it again.
So it is useless as any misstep can potentially kill your access to the repo.