People do not stop stealing cars because of cameras. But I guess Flock is desperate for some good press, so we get propaganda lies now.

Forget it. This person threw together what they mistake for a good spec of a browser and then asked Claude to build it. They do not have the skills to do any real work, LLM support or not. This whole thing is just yet another meaningless stunt that impresses the clueless.

That depends. For example, a Linux kernel basically clears everything out and does everything itself. Hence the drivers for most hardware can be taken from that. Also note that for booting you only need a small part of the "full range of modern hardware" to work and there are quite a few standardized interfaces for storage.

The only thing impressive here is the sheer undiluted stupidity of the approach and of the ones cheering for it. Like you.

You have no clue what you are talking about. Like so many incompetents that cheer for LLMs.

And if the browser is NOT secure, you have several times the problems. Your point?

You seem to have really low standards.

You are being too kind. Any issue that benefits MS being reported anonymously is very likely a direct lie and needs strong evidence to the contrary to even begin to be credible. MS has a long history of dishonest and illegal business practices.

Come to think of, the whole article sounds very much like slop.

Of course the claim that secure or not is a question of using a JIT compiler is completely bogus and just demonstrates that the one making it has absolutely no clue about software security.

No chance. And since you start with slop, completely forget about it. Nice hobbyist demo project, but that is it.

So this thing is slop? Even more reasons not to use it. It means everything not specified in detail is suspect, missing, broken or insecure and maintenance will be an absolute nightmare.

The overwhelming concern for any browser these days is security. And that means looking at all the libraries that get pulled in as well. And suddenly things get a lot more murky. Until we get real defense-in-depth as a mandatory requirement in all software that can be taken seriously, this is an arms-race and a single person cannot compete.

Yep. Also, statements do not get much more low credibility than this, because this supposedly "absolute shit" tool is in widespread use and nobody has complained on that level about it now. The best fix is probably to remove the clowns making that statement.

You are confusing several steps here:
1. Get it away from US companies with a documented history of blocking organizational users on request from the US governmwent.
2. Get it to an EU source or FOSS for "reasons".

They are doing the first step now. The second one may not be needed.

Yeah. Next escalation "A large group of EU Officials loves Teams and wants to keep it because it is massively better than all competitors!".