Comment Re:No (Score 1) 16
AI slop articles that get summarized into yet more AI slop. I doubt many humans read this stuff.
AI slop articles that get summarized into yet more AI slop. I doubt many humans read this stuff.
It doesn't affect text so ctrl F still works. The rest can be mitigated by supplying element sizes in the HTML.
By your reasoning you don't know anything about Microsoft's process but you're declaring victory for Open Source.
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.
We were talking about Linux desktop, not Linux server.
The only difference is that servers are more likely to have more outdated software.
How did we get to the point where 8000MB is considered a bare minimum?
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...
It tends to have fewer exploits in the wild because hackers, when given a choice between going after 60% of the desktop market, and going after 5% of the desktop market, will nearly always choose the 60% piece of the pie. It's just not profitable enough to go after a tiny sliver of the market.
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.
Are we talking about Apple or the USA here?
Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.
It is certainly more like Linux than say, Windows.
It is, but IME a lot of software needs architectural changes to work on it, similar to when you're trying to build software for Windows in cygwin. That's one reason I decided it wasn't worth the hassle back when I was running it.
When it comes to being allowed to do what you want with your computer, it's a lot more like Windows than it is like Linux. And it's been getting worse.
But it is also generally more secure, outside of its obscurity
This is a fantasy not substantiated by evidence. Heartbleed--a Linux vulnerability in an open source library--was lying in plain sight for years before some hacker discovered it, and it was exploited in the wild for years before anybody discovered the attack.
Now tell us how many similar bugs are in Windows, and will be found even without the obscurity of closed source. You don't know, because you depend on Microsoft to tell you when they fuck up, but you're declaring this a victory for Microsoft anyway? Do fucking tell.
Linux desktop with 16 Mb RAM was possible in the 90s
No, 2MB was never enough for a Linux desktop. I had 8MB on my 386 and it was only just sufficient.
Amazon will replace workers with robots the second it is feasible. This won't do anything to change that.
At the source of every error which is blamed on the computer you will find at least two human errors, including the error of blaming it on the computer.