This is the beginner forum and this topic is about getting an overview. I think Raspberry Pi is obfuscated and makes getting an overview challenging. Even something so basic such as an explanation on the difference of what's installed on the Lite OS and the full OS is missing on the raspberrypi.com page where the images are available. There should be a link or a drop down section or just something which can be clicked to get info on the difference. But instead we have to search for that information and it's not so simple to find. Everything is obfuscated and made more challenging to learn than it should be. that was just one example.
And you keep saying it's not necessary for the images to be signed because we can instead build our custom images with signed boot. That doesn't solve the problem that the prebuild images are not signed. And if we are going to build our own custom image then we need the commits to be signed so we know we downloaded the correct authentic/official code which we intend to build the image with.
Another thing I don't like about the build process is that the script installs all the dependencies. It's better if you instead list the dependencies so we can install them ourselves before running the build script.
There are just so many things raspberry pi does in unorthodox and obfuscated ways and lacking things such as PGP signatures which all other OS does.
Also you say that is "folks idea of a trusted source" but do you have evidence of such a claim? Because statistics show clearly that the peoples trust in those sources are lower than they ever been. And I didn't even ask what are "folks" idea about trusted source, I asked what YOU think because you are the one who is asking.
And you are defending CIA. You didn't just ask for a source, you defended CIA by saying that I am wrong, and then you also attack me be calling me a loony. You definitely are defending CIA. And it doesn't matter if you are in UK because CIA has global presence.
And you keep saying it's not necessary for the images to be signed because we can instead build our custom images with signed boot. That doesn't solve the problem that the prebuild images are not signed. And if we are going to build our own custom image then we need the commits to be signed so we know we downloaded the correct authentic/official code which we intend to build the image with.
Another thing I don't like about the build process is that the script installs all the dependencies. It's better if you instead list the dependencies so we can install them ourselves before running the build script.
There are just so many things raspberry pi does in unorthodox and obfuscated ways and lacking things such as PGP signatures which all other OS does.
It's as I initially thought and said, you basically want cia to investigate itself, any other source is not acceptable. You don't want to see evidence, the only thing you care about is who presents the evidence. "I want to see evidence but only if it's from CNN or BBC". For example, if someone has a video of someone breaking into someones house, does it really matter who presents that video evidence or do you still require that evidence is only valid if it's from BBC and CNN?I wasn't defending the CIA. I didn't mention them.
I just did what any sane, reasonable, and reasonably intelligent person would do. I asked you to substantiate your claims with hard evidence.
Folks' idea of of a trusted source will vary but here's a few suggestions:
- Several of the independent, reputable, international news organisations (e.g Reuters, the BBC, PA, etc. but not FoxNews or any other with an axe to grind.)
- Websites with a strong reputation for debunking conspiracy theories (e.g. snopes.com)
- Wikileaks and/or wikipedia though both are somewhat less trustworthy given their editing policies.
- You tube videos from any of the above (but not videos from random youtubers and/or influencers) where sources can be verified.
Also you say that is "folks idea of a trusted source" but do you have evidence of such a claim? Because statistics show clearly that the peoples trust in those sources are lower than they ever been. And I didn't even ask what are "folks" idea about trusted source, I asked what YOU think because you are the one who is asking.
And you are defending CIA. You didn't just ask for a source, you defended CIA by saying that I am wrong, and then you also attack me be calling me a loony. You definitely are defending CIA. And it doesn't matter if you are in UK because CIA has global presence.
Statistics: Posted by rpifunfun — Sat Jul 12, 2025 10:56 am