> The best thing we can hope for is that Google makes Android so anti-consumer, anti-developer and anti-hacker

Except Google is doing the exact opposite. The Nexus 5 is the best off-contract phone out there hands down AND comes with an unlockable bootloader.

Google made the N5 and other kitkat devices more secure out of the box with this change AND continues to let you go nuts with your own hardware, best of both worlds.

The proper solution for users who want to modify their devices is an unlocked bootloader, not skipping the implementation of useful security features! I'm as annoyed by unrooted devices as anyone else, but blaming the security implementation is insane, sorry. The blame falls on the manufacturers and what they permit. Google (the ones making android "anti-consumer"...) ships an unlockable bootloader on all their devices.

"anti-consumer, anti-developer and anti-hacker"

Of the last two, you'll get no argument from me, but I would argue this is not "anti-consumer". Consumers do not care about the things developers and hackers care about. All the exploits allow for disabling security procedures that can be activated over the air.

A consumer wants a non-hackable phone, so if it lost they can lock, track, and erase it.

Does this mean we cannot have both ownership and security? No, but Google doesn't look like they are interested in that.

So, how do you prevent the average user from getting infected with rootkits and other malicious software on a Linux device?

Manufacturers love locked bootloaders. Otherwise you may squeeze a year or two more life from a device.

That's unlikely when so many people in the tech sphere (PG included) paint Google as an 'open' benevolent company fighting the 'evil' of everyone else.

That seems to have changed over the last few years.

A little, but they are still regarded as 'better than the others' by those who for some reason desire that Google obtain a monopoly over search and the OS.