It can also be used to extract metadata, which is used to attack someone in other ways or through other software or OS.
Threat model. Regular user aren't attacked this way?
And those exploits are features in Chromium browsers.
Nonsense.
Chromium sandboxing means nothing when it leaks so much data.
The attacker can't gain access to the host with javascript.
A browser that support javascript but doesn't have sandboxing might not leak these data but when their are bug in their js implementation, the attacker can gain more access to the host.
Also, security means nothing if privacy and anonymity are worse.
Security here is protection from exploits, bugs,...
Chromium is inadequate and bad.
For a anonymous browser, but not for a secure browser. The paper is purely about privacy and anonymity. No security (sandboxing, mitigations) here.
Then why does the Tor Project choose Firefox over Chromium as its browser base? Chromium is incredibly insecure and full of holes. Post this wishy washy bullshit on reddit, not on Lemmy.
Because Tor browser's goal is maximum anonymity and onion service. Firefox might be lag behind in security, but its code and features met the privacy requirements. Tor browser try to achieve some security by using noscript and block some web feature.
wiped clean?
It is windows users that pretend to be linux user.
They are root.
You should deal with problem yourself rather than asking like this. Or forget ping.
fucking anyone disliking, that guy doesn't even have knowledge what a hostname and a protocol is. They should learn it themselves. Don't need to ask.
Laugh on copyleft. If BSD was copyleft much thing would not have borned or being very different.
Copyleft is a way to prevent development. No one wants their contribution to be restricted.
Sadly, GNU is dying. musl, elftoolchain, chimera linux and much more BSD-licensed alternative is rising. The GPL viruses are losing permissively licensed, cleaner software. They have to stop spreading.
Anyone licensing their software permissively is not dumb or need to update their license. They have their intention.
🤢
🤢 on copyleft
Distributions like RHEL and Debian freeze packages, you will have to use old package when the newer is available. I think these distributions is just for highly mission-critical system, they have to run software smoothly, no breakage. Most personal computer don't need that stability.
Can anyone explain more about what a stable distributions mean?
For a reasonably stable but updated os I would recommend FreeBSD. You only have to install X yourself, and linux guides doesn't work. But reading manual page and searching on mailing lists can solve every issue. OpenBSD is easier but it is a bit "slow" in performance, packages are not updated (you have to follow -current, the latest development branch).
They both use hundreds megabytes of RAM just to render my static page. But for hydrogen web chromium use ~35M. This is shitty.
(w3m use 10M and in most case for searching we only need text-based browser)
My current issue is i see you guys constantly having issues, editing files etc.
These guy cannot self-develop
They never learn thing themselves. Never read books. Never read manual pages.
Just ignore them.
Is it not stable?
Commits to softwares around Linux (userland, system maintenance tools, etc) usually just works (even if alpha). There are few bugs.
Alpine Linux edge+testing is much stable (my only issue come from testing mesa packages, just don't upgrade this package to any version without -r0 or -r1 or like that :) )
Can you not set it up and then not have ongoing issues?
Yes.
A system that never have to su root (except for shutdown, reboot).
Yes, and the guy wants to learn to programming and, for whatever reason, went with Rust.
Ok.
C is a bad choice for a first language, they will likely not enjoy it and quit. With Rust they have a fighting chance.
Untested.
BSD is so dead
No evidence.
Linux might won on quantity, but its quality is not comparable to BSDs.
A typical example is OpenBSD, to quote Michael W. Lucas:
Many open source operating system put a lot of effort into growing their user base, evangelizing, and bringing new people into the Unix fold. OpenBSD does not.
The communities surrounding other operating systems actively encourage new users and try to make newbies feel welcome. OpenBSD specifically and deliberately does not.
The developers know exactly who their target market is: themselves. If you can use their work, that's great. If not, go away until you can.
They will not hold your hand. They will not develop new features to please users. OpenBSD exist to meet the needs of the developers, and while others are welcome to ride along, the needs of the passengers do not steer the project.
And it still live well?!@
You should have backups. Not hedge against 1 in 10 million error conditions.
if a partition isn't actively written to, it's less likely to suffer damage
The second one is a huge bother in desktops. I never not regretted trying it.
ok
The third one is a complete non-problem.
This is only a problem with OpenBSD. They never encourage using a huge single root partition, and never test it.
It have an asterisk, not a -
Users want compatibility and ease of use.
The distribution can choose not to include proprietary drivers. And not to "fix" it.
"Ignorance is strength", isn't the strength of "linux communities" is enough to take nvidia down?
Big language which is not yet considered to be "powerful" enough by the guy who rewrites the whole kernel in C++. Slow compile time, high memory usage.
C is a small language and it is as powerful as assembly.
But learning any programming language can still get your mind up.
People here's take about why free software ("open source") should be preferred, in my opinion (basically the OpenBSD's opinion) is flawed.
You said "open source" is "good" because it permits having eyes on ("auditing") and make sure there isn't malware.
This is NOT the most important benefit. But it is flawed because, you guys don't even have the knowledge to do coding. You guys are activist/"journalists" working for CIA. So you cannot audit the software yourselves.
Or "open source" but with a bad code style, how can you make sure the code doesn't have backdoors? But I think hilarious journalists that is only smart enough to post fake news about how down is the Russia and China economy can't even write bad code.
"open source" is good, firstly, because it permits auditing the source code and find the bugs, replace flawed/bad code with safer alternative (for example, the advantage of an open-source C software when porting to OpenBSD is they can replace every occurrence of strcat/strcpy with safer strlcat/strlcpy), sandbox it (on OpenBSD, with pledge and unveil), do privileges separation and revocation, etc.
And I think "you can make sure there isn't malware/backdoors" is the second benefit, NEVER THE FIRST.
Conclusion: Do not blindly trust what is "open source" when you can't even do code auditing.