Netanyahu, is that you? Was this lie about nukes they never had promised to you 3,000 years ago?

I admit that it's not intelligent to continue to waste time talking to someone like you, who thinks you can't do things I've done because you have no practical experience.

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA

HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHA

Keep going, this is precious

Not anyone who is bombing schools, Nazi.

I will remind you that the Nazis were inspired by the USA. There is no universe in which the USA is the good guys.

Oh, are you one of the stupid clowns I've corrected on b and B? I bet you are.

This is bullshit. A percent of a percent of 486s had more than 16MB.

Those who would give up freedom and security to attack an adversary who isn't even a threat are stupid fucks.

You're conflating Windows versions as if they were all the same, Linux only allows that if you're root and there is no good reason for it to be otherwise, etc. and I specifically stated that one of those OSes has no security, obviously MacOS. Thanks for proving you don't know shit about shit and no one should listen to you.

Impossible to figure out what you think you meant while you're mixing tenses. 486s with more than 16GB of RAM were extremely scarce and now they are even scarcer, they are not more common. Probably they are a larger percentage of the remaining 486s, but that is not the same thing as there being plenty around.

Bullshit like this is why anonymous posting shouldn't exist.

Who is still using a 486 and also needs modern kernel features? Let them run an older kernel. They are going to have to run older software anyway because a 486 with more than about 16MB is rare, and modern Linux distributions require multiple GB of RAM.

This is not even vaguely close to true, although classic MacOS was designed like security didn't matter. All of these operating systems were built after the invention of the computer virus and two of them had security baked in. The third required two antivirus programs for relative safety (gatekeeper and disinfectant) because it had no security, which was always stupid. The modern MacOS is descended from an OS where security was understood to matter. The state of the art in computer security was simply undeveloped compared to what it is today.

When China demanded that vendors operating app stores bend over completely for fascism, Google pulled out and Apple did not. Thus we knew conclusively that they would rather support fascism than leave any amount of money on the table.

Now we (Apple's detractors on this issue) can see that exactly what we predicted has come to pass. Apple is joyfully assisting with oppression anywhere they can do so. To them, government demands for totalitarianism are irrelevant, because Apple sees no problem with forcing users to behave a specific way for their benefit to the detriment of their freedom. Why would they see government oppression in any other way than simply the terms under which they must operate in order to maximize profit?

Corporations never have qualms about bad behavior, but sometimes the people who operate them do. This appears not to be the case for Apple.

Oh no, there is no victory. Your summary is pretty good here. But the idea that Linux is provably less secure because old bugs were found is flatly wrong. They were found late, but they were indeed found. How many ancient bugs are lurking in proprietary software that nobody has found for positive reasons and made full disclosures of so affected parties know they need to mitigate? Nobody knows!

Server OSes are more likely to have older versions of software and then backport fixes. Desktop OSes are more likely to default to doing automatic updates, or at least hassling the user to do them.

I was hoping at the bottom of the article it would say that Professor Utonium accidentally added Chemical X.