Just had another argument about curl|sh, so I'm going to say this top level for future reference.
The way we use curl|sh is as secure, or more secure, than traditional distro distribution mechanisms (e.g. ISO images with hashes or PGP signatures) for 99.9% of users. If you think otherwise, you don't understand the threat models involved, and you're wrong.
If you are in the 0.1% that actually cross-references PGP keys against multiple sources, exchanges keys in person, and that kind of thing, then you could indeed actually benefit from a more secure distribution mechanism. You're also, unfortunately, not a significant enough fraction of our user base for us to spend time catering to your increased security demands, that we could instead be spending improving security for everyone (such as by working on SEP support for hardware-backed crypto operations, or figuring out how to actually offer FDE reasonably in our installer).
And if you're not manually verifying fingerprints with friends, but curl|sh still gives you the ick even though you have no solid arguments against it (you don't, trust me, none of you do, I've had this argument too many times already), that's a you problem.
@marcan Funny how it keeps happening, over and over, isn't it? So many people discussing with you about curl|sh... all those insignificant people, with their wrong arguments...
@chebra Funny enough today is the first time anyone has made a non invalid argument (that they're in the aforementioned 0.1%), hence this discussion and specific explanation of that case.
But no, I don't particularly care about how many people are wrong and use invalid arguments. There are lots of people who are wrong on the internet. Everyone I actually care about and trust agrees our usage of curl|sh is fine, as do the vast majority of our users who have no issue with it. That a small number of loud voices disagree doesn't make them right.
@marcan I'm glad I had the chance to talk to someone who is never wrong, thank you for that.