Chromium Browsers are more secure if you use the native package.
This conclusion is relative for everyone as we all have different security needs. Plus there's no easier, better supported way to sandbox Chrome on Linux other than using Flatpak's permission model.
It's also ironic for you to be speaking about security when you are installing/updating your browser using random curl bash scripts.
Both Mauro and Linus are human. I trust them to be so. I don't get the point of endlessly pontificating about human quirks & behavior, we are all not assembled from the same factory. And we all grow and we learn. No one's perfect.
Plus, your argument fails to address the main issue here, Mauro needing to realize that he needs to improve in order to continue contributing to a project shared among many people and one passionately guarded by Linus as his baby.
What's so funny?
You are missing the forest for the trees. The question is, did Mauro become a better kernel contributor/programmer?
There really isn't much difference. I used Ungoogled-chromium before now. I use Chrome for selfish reasons. The flatpak for it(dev version) is auto updated with no human input required so I get fixes and security patches earlier and I kinda like that release.
If I can replace a file in your EFI, how hard would it be to sign the same file.
Chrome. I know that might be hard to believe but the switches work. You can absolutely stop Google from prefetching their usual services. Plus I don't login with a Google account on the browser, that makes a huge difference.
Out of them all, the most famous one is the one I use. Kept the name a bit of a mystery to avoid the resultant argument about it btw.
A distro isn't just a way to interact with the Linux operating system. It's a collection of tools that helps you do it. Some tools are just sharper that others. The community just likes debating about this important nuance. It's not that complicated.
My tools of choice come from the famous blue logo distro.
I use hardened Chrome with a lot of flags/features disabled and some privacy extensions. It's good enough for me.
Arch is not stable but it's easy to fix issues arising from its rolling release nature. One of the ways being utilizing the AUR packagedowngradefor easy package version rollbacks. I should also note that the most common reason for Arch breaking is rarely ever because of the distro itself but because upstream has introduced breaking changes. You can see this when an upstream feature breaks in Arch, then Fedora picks up the same bug a few weeks/month later.
Arch is however the most solid distro I've ever used since I began using Linux many many moons ago.
One thing that is an Arch problem is that, if you do not update often enough, you can end-up with outdated keys that prevent you from installing before packages. The solution is just to update the keyring before updating everything else but this is confusing for a new user and kind of dumb in my opinion. I feel like the system should do this for me.
Arch already does this. Could be that your install has the keyring refresh service disabled but I've had it enabled for a good while now and I've never encountered that outdated pacman keyring issue.
Whatever you do, make sure you setup firewall properly and enable automatic updates for your software. People say this last part is bad advice, but I'd rather have software break from an update than get ransomware'd.