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.

You have a short memory. This shit show isn't worse than the past. MS very much pushed out colossally fucked up updates, even back in the XP days. Heck back then, before the days of automated recovery processes shit was MUCH worse. There were actual updates that may have forced you to go looking for your Windows XP install disc to fix.

Your comment fails for the same reason. By your reasoning you don't know anything about Microsoft's process but you're declaring victory for Open Source. The reality is that everything who makes this an open vs closed issue is very ignorantly missing the underlying fact that security update affect all platforms and all practices for releasing code, open or closed. Just in different ways.

It does not. Zero-days are a thing on Linux. EOL is a thing on Linux, and many modern distros very much will force auto-update packages marked as a security risk.

Congrats, you so clever. All users did this in the 90s. It was a security nightmare, especially when people were proud of running out of date buggy software. You may be an expert and capable of curating your update process (I'll give you the benefit of doubt, generous of me since you think this concept is OS related) but that doesn't mean what you do is even remotely appropriate for 99% of users out there, regardless of what OS they use.

And yet the answer is actually yes. Unless all you do is Linux command line stuff or browse static webpages using a browser that last was standards compliant in the early 2000s, 4GB is not longer a viable minimum for anyone who doesn't also spend their evenings self-flagellating. It's masochistic to use an underperforming computer.

The internet is dynamic. Lazy loading is an optimisation technique that makes the browser experience better for the 99.99% of people currently *not* sitting at the airport about to board a flight.

What you really want to do is save the page. Chrome has that function, though I suspect it will have other problems, but it very much does load all images and make the page static (many webpages have an expiry / timeout period so even if you pre-loaded the tab, activating it 30min later will cause it to attempt to reload). There's a shitload of things preventing you doing what you want to do, you really need to find another solution.

Print to PDF may work too?

The only difference is that servers are more likely to have more outdated software.

Lazy-loading is not load on demand. It's literally loading it when it gets close to the viewport, in advance, before the user actually sees it or clicks on it. It's the middle thing between loading on demand, and pre-loading every element on the page.

Love of convenience, I guess. I often find it astonishing myself. The software might do 100 times more but it takes 1000 times as much memory...

Continuous scrolling content has nothing to do with this article. This article is about Chrome, and Ctrl+F works fine for all loaded content, you are misdirecting your anger in a comment to the wrong article. Also you can't load infinitely. You can't Ctrl+F the second page of Slashdot while on the first page either.

This has nothing to do with anything. You are making a completely off-topic rant. Continuous scrolling pages are not a symptom of using a pre-made libarary. It's a choice for displaying content. An admittedly shitty and anti-consumer choice, but a choice none the less. They may use a pre-made library to do it (and they should, too many programmers baking their own recipe is the reason why some continuously loading pages just end up as a ginormous memory leak. If they were *good* programmers they'd understand the value of using a tried and tested library using DOM-reuse or some other efficient way of doing their anti-consumer task. But none of this has anything to do with lazy-loading of video / audio.

Disagree heavily. You should absolutely load. Autoplay absolutely is a cancer and entirely within the control of the user, but when the user hits that play button that video better play instantly and not sit there buffering or loading. Lazyloading is a good thing that makes the internet appear far more responsive.

Complete 24/7 tracking of you as an individual. They have to have a unique identifier for you and it has to be stored somewhere for this to work.

And we are just letting it happen because why the fuck not? Any politicians it's going to oppose this is also not going to play into our love of moral panics and knee-jerk reactions. Making them completely non-viable.

Linux underpins the internet. It's the primary server OS on the planet. High-value data is held on Linux systems. The idea that it's not profitable to attack those targets is silly. They're harder to attack. People still do it. That's why there are still ssh port scans for example.

If you give Windows 11 less than 16 GB you might as well not bother booting it. It is painfully slow and that's why you're not seeing 8 GB Windows laptops even though apple is out there selling in 8 GB laptop that's threatening the entire industry.

And honestly you really really want 32 GB for Windows 11 and 64 GB wouldn't hurt. It's one of the reasons the Damned ram crisis is so bad. Microsoft guzzles RAM for their slop generators and monitoring software. As a consumer if you're stuck running Windows you have to pay for all that in CPU cycles and RAM.