>It's a different approach to security
That's like saying using a hole in a wall is a different approach to security than putting a lockable door in a wall. Sure no security is s different approach to security, but it's not an effective one.
>There are no malicious apps in GNU/Linux repositories
Maybe not intentionally malicous, but there have been bugs that can cause applications to act maliciously such as deleting users files. If an application gets exploited it could also do malicous things. Just because you trust the author of a program, that doesn't mean that sanboxing is pointless. Additionally programs like the terminal are a free for the user to run things like curl | sh which can run malware infecting the system and run wild since there is no security to stop it from doing almost anything.
>Purism
The wiki page pretty much says that they don't have privacy or security and don't have the resources to implement such features unlike Google or Apple. They also make some claims to try and pretend their platform is secure and private in order to help sell the Librem 5, a product they made with inferior privacy and security compared to Android.
I hope you consider strict threat modeling when deciding which approach to security is preferred. How about a threat of Google removing your control of the OS [this thread] and [0]? Or Google delaying security patches [1]?
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45017028
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45208925
>Google removing your control of the OS
That is a feature of Play Services and not a part of AOSP which is what we are talking about.
>Or Google delaying security patches
Like it or not coordinated vulnerability disclosure is a thing in the industry and is done by other Linux distros too.
This is not "coordinated vulnerability disclosure". It's waiting for slow vendors at the risk of everybody else.