Speeduser7533 can you elaborate on why you say Ubuntu is insecure? I'm not arguing I'm genuinely curious.
I don't remember why I said especially Ubuntu, that was months ago. but Linux as a whole just doesn't have the level of exploit mitigations that both Windows and macOS have. ChromeOS is pretty good in terms of security too, due to how locked-down it is, but it's not as useable for a lot of desktop needs, and you have to worry about Google of course.
Both Windows and macOS are pretty serious about security, and Windows has a bunch of exploit mitigations you can enable in 10/11, but Windows has a problem where secure hardware just doesn't exist. So things like proper verified boot isn't happening for Windows, while Apple makes their own hardware that is much more secure and can at least provide proper verified boot. With Linux you can forget about verified boot too, and it doesn't have any of the exploit mitigations that Windows (and perhaps macOS) have.
See, Windows is backed by a multi-trillion dollar company, whose software is relied upon by millions of businesses, some more important than others (governments/defense contractors anybody?) Security is critical for a lot of businesses, and Microsoft has the resources to focus on that. But they don't make hardware, they just make the software.
Apple also happens to be a multi-trillion dollar company, except they also make their own hardware. They don't have the millions of business customers that Microsoft has, but they have the resources.
What does Linux have? Red Hat is valued at less than 1% what Apple and Microsoft are, and forget about Canonical. They don't own Linux either, all they can do is offer contributions to the kernel and sell support for their own flavor of Linux. Not every contribution is going to be accepted (Linus infamously thinks that usability is far more important than security, for example), and even if they did have complete control over kernel development, they just don't have the resources that Microsoft and Apple do to focus so much on hardening and exploit protections.
Secureblue is cool, but it means nothing if the hardware it's running on is insecure. And Canonical, lol, Canonical. They don't do much beyond selling customer support and licensing their OS to hardware manufacturers, and snaps are a complete joke. Ubuntu does get some credit for using Wayland by default, but Wayland alone isn't going to fix desktop security.
I hesitate to link this article because it's nearly 3 years old now, some of the problems mentioned might not be applicable anymore, but you can follow sources and look up more recent information on anything you might not be sure about.
You don't have to take my word for it though. GrapheneOS wants to move away from the Linux kernel eventually, and there is a reason for that. But GrapheneOS has even less resources than Canonical, it may take a very long time before a replacement comes. At least GrapheneOS has the advantage that Google themselves are very serious about security, and they are providing a very good base with AOSP and Pixel devices, for Graphene to further harden. I can't imagine that Google would do the work to move Android away from Linux, but they put a lot of resources into making secure hardware and software, and Graphene greatly benefits from it. There could be no GrapheneOS without Google.