You are absolutely correct. The attack footprint on various *NIX systems is definitely lower than it is for Windows.
But there is a huge difference between "certain software are more dangerous than others" and "my favourite software is completely immune!"
I just wanted people to understand that no matter what OS you use, you *still* need to be mindful of security. If a Linux system is running some version of httpd that turns out to have a zero day vulnerability, you're still at risk, for example. Maybe you didn't sleep well the night before and stupidly set your root password to 'root', or some other equally idiotic thing that you would normally never have done.
Certain computers never getting hacked, malware, or virused up?
Except that has never ever been true, except to the OS zealots who tie their personal identity to their chosen platform like some weird religious devotee.
It's funny, I've gotten into arguments on slashdot for this exact thing, by people who were so offended when said that their favourite OS (no matter what it is) isn't a perfect panacea. They went so far as to accuse me that I "don't know security" because, for example, I disagreed that just using FreeBSD didn't make that automagically immune to security threats.
What happened to Mr. Frank is a perfect example of what I was talking about. It doesn't matter how secure you think your OS is, because there is *always* a way to compromise it. Even if your OS isn't directly exploitable, an application you run on top of it may be. If not, the meatspace component certainly still is.
All it takes is a single mistake, a single lapse in judgment for something potentially catastrophic to happen.
There is no such thing as perfect security. All you can do is put up more barriers than a malicious actor has the patience to tear down. That includes appropriate training for people. Anyone who tells you different is either grossly misinformed, or is trying to sell you something.
If you think I don't understand security, then you obviously didn't read my post, nor do *you* understand security.
Yes, Windows is far more problematic than Mac, which is more problematic than Linux, than BSD, etc etc blah blah blah. That is well known and not even a matter for discussion. The horse is so dead that it's already decomposed. Would you stop flogging it already?
That does NOT mean that *BSD is completely impervious. It just means that they've done a better job keeping their default attack surface down, and people haven't cared enough to seriously try to exploit it. It also does not mean that the software running ON the operating system doesn't have a hole waiting to be exploited. It ALSO does not mean that the person administering the box won't accidentally fatfinger something and leave a gaping hole purely by accident.
Quite plainly, choosing your favourite operating system is not the start and finish of security. Just because that concept hurts your misplaced pride, doesn't make it less true.
I mean, holy fucking christ, how hard is it for people like you to understand that *shit* *happens*? It does. We do not live in a perfect world. An administrator may be called upon to make a configuration change when they happened to not have a good night sleep, and then accidentally make a mistake without realizing it?
There are freaking encyclopedias worth of best practises available, free for the reading (eg: NIST) that detail all the various things one should do to help improve security of their infrastructure.
But people like you think you know everything, and know better than everybody else, and that's why infosec in general is going down the toilet around the world, because people like you and that other guy would rather sit in your little Dunning-Kruger cave with your fingers in your ears.
Does it now? Then I guess you'll have no difficulty finding someone to refute what I said.
After all, the Appeal to Authority fallacy only means that you should not assume what I said is true just because I claim authority. It says nothing about the validity of the argument itself.
So please, if I'm wrong, correct me. Having correct information is critical when managing infrastructure, and I want to do the best job I can.
If, on the other hand, your *only* argument is "You made a logical fallacy so therefore you are wrong", then you yourself are making a logical fallacy and we have nothing further to discuss.
Wow, that's a lovely bunch of assumptions you're making.
If you honestly think that people arn't trying to hack you... if you think that Linux and FreeBSD are completely perfect and exploit free... then you as inexperienced and foolish as you're accusing me of being, so maybe you should learn a little humility, hmmm?
Security isn't an on-off/yes-no concept. Security has nothing to do with what operating system you use. Security is a *mindset*. Best practise security means using several defences in conjunction, so that should one fail, you're systems arn't instantly exposed. The only question that remains is "how much is enough?" and that all depends on risk assessment and mitigation.
Even if there's no easily accessible exploits, all it takes is for you to make one single mistake with your firewall or some other config and you're now ripe for the picking. You're probably saying to yourself, "I would never do something that stupid." And yeah, that's very easy to say.... right up until it actually happens. It's not a failure in your skills... It's simply a fact of life that shit happens for countless reasons.
Oh, and FYI, I'm an IT Manager and sysadmin, managing large fleets of servers that use everything from Mac, Windows, various flavours of linux, freebsd, XenServer, VMWare ESXi, etc etc. If you were under me and I found out you were needlessly risking servers by dumping them onto the open net without at *least* having a cisco or other flavour of hardware firewall in front of them, I'd fire your ass so fast you would have no idea how you ended up head over teakettle on the curb.
That is true, but the key factor is, "What's it used for?"
The overwhelming majority of those unix variant system are used for playing Candy Crush Saga and Flappy Bird, or browsing Facebook. They are primarily consumption devices. While there have some inroads towards empowering those devices to do more (eg: Office 365, google apps, etc), they are still overwhelmingly used for consumption.
I'm willing to bet that there are more computerized temperature control systems are at least equal to the number of desktop computers in people's houses, but no one is clamouring to compare those against Windows.
Looking at desktop/laptop marketshare, where actual work is being done Windows is still the undisputable king. Businesses still primarily use Windows. Home users still primarily use windows. If your a PC gamer, you're virtually guaranteed to be using Windows.
There is still a great deal of software that is only available for Windows. Most AAA games are windows only. Software like Quickbooks, which is a make-or-break tool for most businesses, is only available for Windows.
Macs have... what? Maybe 15% marketshare, give or taken? Linux on the desktop is practically a rounding error.
All this is slowly changing, especially as the mobile device market expands and diversifies, but we are not there yet. I am personally delighted that Microsoft has so completely and utterly failed in almost every market that doesn't involve desktops. But we still have to be realistic about the fact that, at least as of now, regular Windows computers still retain a very strong 'wag the dog' status.
At this point, anyone who connects a PC directly to the internet is begging to be hacked. This has been shockingly bad practise for literally *decades* now, and people absolutely should know better. This isn't even a Windows-specific thing, even though Windows machines are overwhelmingly affected.
Important things about the internet today: -Keep your machine behind a router -Don't open attachments that you weren't expecting, especially if it's from someone you don't recognize. -Don't share your passwords with anyone.
The internet has been a dangerous wild west for a long time now, and people have no choice but to learn basic safety precautions. It's no less critical than "look both ways before crossing the street" or "use a condom". This is just how it is now.
Oh please, don't be so hyperbolic. Intravenous sedatives would work just fine without the additional weight all those chains would require. As an added bonus, the airlines would save a fortune, not needing to cook and carry all those meals and drinks. And they wouldn't have to deal with unruly and ungrateful passengers that demand to sit in the seats they paid for.
All they'd have to do is having the plane crew walk around now and then, poking the passengers with sticks.
Microsoft really needs to pivot away from operating systems and onto other things. Microsoft has always made excellent peripherals for example. I remember using the first Microsoft Natural keyboard, and it did wonders for my RSI at the time.
And then they do stuff like this.
Seems to me that if Microsoft spun off their Windows and Office divisions, they'd be a pretty good company.
It is now virtually impossible to get anything *other* than Windows 10 on computers. Newer machines with Kaby Lake or Ryzen processors effectively *force* you to get Windows 10. Microsoft is figuratively holding a gun to people's heads and saying, "You use Windows 10, or nothing at all."
In other news, taco sales are through the roof! The fact that it's now mandatory for people to eat Tacos for dinner every day has *nothing* to do with it.
You, sir, are WRONG, idiot. Please go drink a gallon of petrol and then light a joint.
You know, if you're going to troll, you could at least be more imaginative about it. Like:
Your argument, sir, is BLATANTLY ERRONEOUS AND FALLACIOUS, you proctologic haberdashery! Please forthwith imbibe a sizeable quantity of refined hydrocarbons, followed by partaking in a quality combustable cannabis product.
Is it really that bad compared to everything else? USB alone is already more than plenty to compromise your machine. And then there's other buses prior to that, such as PCMCIA and PCExpress. (Granted, those are limited to laptops.)
The thing is, if a malicious actor has physical access to your machine, you're fucked regardless.
No it isn't a "racist hit piece". If you've ever had to work with these kinds of people, you would realize that reality backs up this study depressingly well.
I have been involved in several projects that involved outsourced labour. Every single one was a nightmare. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. I wouldn't trust these people to flip a hamburger correctly. The code they write is breathtakingly bad. Yes, there are some good developers. But the overwhelming majority of them are shockingly incompetent.
The problems range the whole gamut from iterating through a hashmap to find a value, to inserting user data into a database unmodified and unchecked, to using doubles for currency. And these are only relatively innocuous examples I can think of off the top of my head. I've seen so many problems, both with the code these offshore people write, and their arrogant pass-the-blame attitude, that I could probably spend the next week writing multiple essays on the topic.
Very few people can write compilable code, right off the bat. All you need is to forget a single semi-colon, for example.
However, this other statistics is *orders of magnitude* more damning:
Getting something to compile is easy. Making it do the job it's supposed to do is significantly harder. Having to rewrite someone elses code because they mangled it so badly as to be unsalvageable potentially wastes the time of other people who should be doing something else entirely.
Even worse than that, would be if the code the wrote just barely satisfies the requirements so people don't notice an issue... until the right circumstances causes the entire system to go nuts, corrupt data, etc. Browsing the website "Worse Than Failure" has more than plenty of examples of how bad this situation can be.
"He did *not* say Trump is bad "because he's like a nasty gay person". He said that Trump is Putin's cock holster."
You're suggesting those are different things? I'm finding that hard to accept.
Okay, you MUST be a troll, because I'm "finding it hard to accept" that you are having that much difficulty understanding common english.
The only way you would consider the homosexual aspect in any way negative, is if you *already* viewed homosexuality negatively. That means you are projecting *your* personal views on Colbert, rather than listening to what is actually being said. Because, unlike Trump, you actually *can* make sense of Colbert when he uses words.
By comparison: If Hilary Clinton was president and he said the exact same thing, (ie: Hilary is Putin's cock holster), what would you say then? It's not homosexual anymore, yet the comment was clearly intended to be derogatory. So what is it now? Misogynist?
Btw: if I resist the urge to be sarcastic does that lower my IQ or your IQ or what exactly? Or you get some kind of recognition by the herd if you are unhappy or what?
Oh ok. You know, you'd save so much time if you just said "I'm a troll" right at the top of your post.
Actually, *you* are the one who isn't following it very well.
He did *not* say Trump is bad "because he's like a nasty gay person". He said that Trump is Putin's cock holster. The only way you could miss the context is if you deliberately ignored it.
Colbert's point is that Trump is a submissive puppet being controlled by Putin. So submissive, that he would happily suck Putin's dick if Putin told him to, which is directly the opposite of the macho tough guy image that Trump portrays himself as. He's being intentionally hyperbolic.
And I have no idea what you're even talking about WRT liberals. The thing about Colbert is that he his schtick revolves around sarcasm. People with low IQs tend to have great difficulty with the concept of sarcasm. So if you say conservatives prefer to avoid watching Colbert, I'll just let the dots connect themselves.
For those of you that don't get it, this is what authoritarianism actually looks like.
Colbert's comment was absolutely NOT homophobic, unless you consider associating Trump with gays to be insulting to gays (which, I would grant...).
What this is ACTUALLY about is the Trump administration not being happy that a prominent celebrity made a negative comment about Trump, and so they will do whatever they can to prosecute him, even if it means redefining the english language.
And by the way, THIS is what first amendment is for. Like it or not, Trump IS government. That means he is *required* to suck it up if people criticize him, just like every gov't body has done before him.
It's truely scary how you Americans are not just fucking yourselves over, but you're doing it with eyes wide open and cheers.
Oh, this is just fucking dandy. It's not enough that the US voted a rambling side show carnival barker for a president, but now apparently his word-salad speeches have becoming in vogue and everyone else is starting to copy that style. When I tried to read the summary I thought I was having a stroke cause that quote bordered on nonsensical (and a perfect pattern copy of a typical Trump speech).
Not that I'm really all that surprised, since Trump has proven that bullshit word salad speeches actually work more effectively than honest communication.
I can't wait to see the next device Microsoft puts out, then abandons 6 months later because it doesn't mystically sell like hotcakes right out of the gate.
So you get a free upgrade from bullshit to slightly more full featured bullshit.
Until they start making Enterprise readily available, this is all just handwaving.
It's so frustrating... Apple has been pissing me off to no end with their hardware decisions, and yet Microsoft has *still* managed to piss me off so much more that I would rather pay the Apple Dongle/Dingleberry Tax than go back to Windows..
Slashdot Mirror
You are absolutely correct. The attack footprint on various *NIX systems is definitely lower than it is for Windows.
But there is a huge difference between "certain software are more dangerous than others" and "my favourite software is completely immune!"
I just wanted people to understand that no matter what OS you use, you *still* need to be mindful of security. If a Linux system is running some version of httpd that turns out to have a zero day vulnerability, you're still at risk, for example. Maybe you didn't sleep well the night before and stupidly set your root password to 'root', or some other equally idiotic thing that you would normally never have done.
Shit happens.
Certain computers never getting hacked, malware, or virused up?
Except that has never ever been true, except to the OS zealots who tie their personal identity to their chosen platform like some weird religious devotee.
It's funny, I've gotten into arguments on slashdot for this exact thing, by people who were so offended when said that their favourite OS (no matter what it is) isn't a perfect panacea. They went so far as to accuse me that I "don't know security" because, for example, I disagreed that just using FreeBSD didn't make that automagically immune to security threats.
What happened to Mr. Frank is a perfect example of what I was talking about. It doesn't matter how secure you think your OS is, because there is *always* a way to compromise it. Even if your OS isn't directly exploitable, an application you run on top of it may be. If not, the meatspace component certainly still is.
All it takes is a single mistake, a single lapse in judgment for something potentially catastrophic to happen.
There is no such thing as perfect security. All you can do is put up more barriers than a malicious actor has the patience to tear down. That includes appropriate training for people. Anyone who tells you different is either grossly misinformed, or is trying to sell you something.
If you think I don't understand security, then you obviously didn't read my post, nor do *you* understand security.
Yes, Windows is far more problematic than Mac, which is more problematic than Linux, than BSD, etc etc blah blah blah. That is well known and not even a matter for discussion. The horse is so dead that it's already decomposed. Would you stop flogging it already?
That does NOT mean that *BSD is completely impervious. It just means that they've done a better job keeping their default attack surface down, and people haven't cared enough to seriously try to exploit it. It also does not mean that the software running ON the operating system doesn't have a hole waiting to be exploited. It ALSO does not mean that the person administering the box won't accidentally fatfinger something and leave a gaping hole purely by accident.
Quite plainly, choosing your favourite operating system is not the start and finish of security. Just because that concept hurts your misplaced pride, doesn't make it less true.
I mean, holy fucking christ, how hard is it for people like you to understand that *shit* *happens*? It does. We do not live in a perfect world. An administrator may be called upon to make a configuration change when they happened to not have a good night sleep, and then accidentally make a mistake without realizing it?
There are freaking encyclopedias worth of best practises available, free for the reading (eg: NIST) that detail all the various things one should do to help improve security of their infrastructure.
But people like you think you know everything, and know better than everybody else, and that's why infosec in general is going down the toilet around the world, because people like you and that other guy would rather sit in your little Dunning-Kruger cave with your fingers in your ears.
This shouldn't be insightful, because it's wrong.
That generation of Macbooks still had upgradable ram. I have a 2011 and upgraded the ram to 16GB just fine.
http://www.everymac.com/system...
Don't get me started on Apple's current shit-tastic lineup, but the 2010s, give or take, were the golden age of macs that kicked ass.
That generation of MBPs still had upgradable ram. I have a 2011 and upgraded the ram to 16GB just fine.
Does it now? Then I guess you'll have no difficulty finding someone to refute what I said.
After all, the Appeal to Authority fallacy only means that you should not assume what I said is true just because I claim authority. It says nothing about the validity of the argument itself.
So please, if I'm wrong, correct me. Having correct information is critical when managing infrastructure, and I want to do the best job I can.
If, on the other hand, your *only* argument is "You made a logical fallacy so therefore you are wrong", then you yourself are making a logical fallacy and we have nothing further to discuss.
Wow, that's a lovely bunch of assumptions you're making.
If you honestly think that people arn't trying to hack you... if you think that Linux and FreeBSD are completely perfect and exploit free... then you as inexperienced and foolish as you're accusing me of being, so maybe you should learn a little humility, hmmm?
Security isn't an on-off/yes-no concept. Security has nothing to do with what operating system you use. Security is a *mindset*. Best practise security means using several defences in conjunction, so that should one fail, you're systems arn't instantly exposed. The only question that remains is "how much is enough?" and that all depends on risk assessment and mitigation.
Even if there's no easily accessible exploits, all it takes is for you to make one single mistake with your firewall or some other config and you're now ripe for the picking. You're probably saying to yourself, "I would never do something that stupid." And yeah, that's very easy to say.... right up until it actually happens. It's not a failure in your skills... It's simply a fact of life that shit happens for countless reasons.
Oh, and FYI, I'm an IT Manager and sysadmin, managing large fleets of servers that use everything from Mac, Windows, various flavours of linux, freebsd, XenServer, VMWare ESXi, etc etc. If you were under me and I found out you were needlessly risking servers by dumping them onto the open net without at *least* having a cisco or other flavour of hardware firewall in front of them, I'd fire your ass so fast you would have no idea how you ended up head over teakettle on the curb.
That is true, but the key factor is, "What's it used for?"
The overwhelming majority of those unix variant system are used for playing Candy Crush Saga and Flappy Bird, or browsing Facebook. They are primarily consumption devices. While there have some inroads towards empowering those devices to do more (eg: Office 365, google apps, etc), they are still overwhelmingly used for consumption.
I'm willing to bet that there are more computerized temperature control systems are at least equal to the number of desktop computers in people's houses, but no one is clamouring to compare those against Windows.
Looking at desktop/laptop marketshare, where actual work is being done Windows is still the undisputable king. Businesses still primarily use Windows. Home users still primarily use windows. If your a PC gamer, you're virtually guaranteed to be using Windows.
There is still a great deal of software that is only available for Windows. Most AAA games are windows only. Software like Quickbooks, which is a make-or-break tool for most businesses, is only available for Windows.
Macs have... what? Maybe 15% marketshare, give or taken? Linux on the desktop is practically a rounding error.
All this is slowly changing, especially as the mobile device market expands and diversifies, but we are not there yet. I am personally delighted that Microsoft has so completely and utterly failed in almost every market that doesn't involve desktops. But we still have to be realistic about the fact that, at least as of now, regular Windows computers still retain a very strong 'wag the dog' status.
At this point, anyone who connects a PC directly to the internet is begging to be hacked. This has been shockingly bad practise for literally *decades* now, and people absolutely should know better. This isn't even a Windows-specific thing, even though Windows machines are overwhelmingly affected.
Important things about the internet today:
-Keep your machine behind a router
-Don't open attachments that you weren't expecting, especially if it's from someone you don't recognize.
-Don't share your passwords with anyone.
The internet has been a dangerous wild west for a long time now, and people have no choice but to learn basic safety precautions. It's no less critical than "look both ways before crossing the street" or "use a condom". This is just how it is now.
Ilsa
Oh please, don't be so hyperbolic. Intravenous sedatives would work just fine without the additional weight all those chains would require. As an added bonus, the airlines would save a fortune, not needing to cook and carry all those meals and drinks. And they wouldn't have to deal with unruly and ungrateful passengers that demand to sit in the seats they paid for.
All they'd have to do is having the plane crew walk around now and then, poking the passengers with sticks.
Microsoft really needs to pivot away from operating systems and onto other things. Microsoft has always made excellent peripherals for example. I remember using the first Microsoft Natural keyboard, and it did wonders for my RSI at the time.
And then they do stuff like this.
Seems to me that if Microsoft spun off their Windows and Office divisions, they'd be a pretty good company.
I'm ignoring Macs, Linux and Android for simplicity.
Like it or not, Windows is still the 100lbs gorilla in the computer world.
It is now virtually impossible to get anything *other* than Windows 10 on computers. Newer machines with Kaby Lake or Ryzen processors effectively *force* you to get Windows 10. Microsoft is figuratively holding a gun to people's heads and saying, "You use Windows 10, or nothing at all."
In other news, taco sales are through the roof! The fact that it's now mandatory for people to eat Tacos for dinner every day has *nothing* to do with it.
Assholes.
You, sir, are WRONG, idiot. Please go drink a gallon of petrol and then light a joint.
You know, if you're going to troll, you could at least be more imaginative about it. Like:
Your argument, sir, is BLATANTLY ERRONEOUS AND FALLACIOUS, you proctologic haberdashery! Please forthwith imbibe a sizeable quantity of refined hydrocarbons, followed by partaking in a quality combustable cannabis product.
Is it really that bad compared to everything else? USB alone is already more than plenty to compromise your machine. And then there's other buses prior to that, such as PCMCIA and PCExpress. (Granted, those are limited to laptops.)
The thing is, if a malicious actor has physical access to your machine, you're fucked regardless.
No it isn't a "racist hit piece". If you've ever had to work with these kinds of people, you would realize that reality backs up this study depressingly well.
I have been involved in several projects that involved outsourced labour. Every single one was a nightmare. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. I wouldn't trust these people to flip a hamburger correctly. The code they write is breathtakingly bad. Yes, there are some good developers. But the overwhelming majority of them are shockingly incompetent.
The problems range the whole gamut from iterating through a hashmap to find a value, to inserting user data into a database unmodified and unchecked, to using doubles for currency. And these are only relatively innocuous examples I can think of off the top of my head. I've seen so many problems, both with the code these offshore people write, and their arrogant pass-the-blame attitude, that I could probably spend the next week writing multiple essays on the topic.
Very few people can write compilable code, right off the bat. All you need is to forget a single semi-colon, for example.
However, this other statistics is *orders of magnitude* more damning:
Getting something to compile is easy. Making it do the job it's supposed to do is significantly harder. Having to rewrite someone elses code because they mangled it so badly as to be unsalvageable potentially wastes the time of other people who should be doing something else entirely.
Even worse than that, would be if the code the wrote just barely satisfies the requirements so people don't notice an issue... until the right circumstances causes the entire system to go nuts, corrupt data, etc. Browsing the website "Worse Than Failure" has more than plenty of examples of how bad this situation can be.
"He did *not* say Trump is bad "because he's like a nasty gay person". He said that Trump is Putin's cock holster."
You're suggesting those are different things? I'm finding that hard to accept.
Okay, you MUST be a troll, because I'm "finding it hard to accept" that you are having that much difficulty understanding common english.
The only way you would consider the homosexual aspect in any way negative, is if you *already* viewed homosexuality negatively. That means you are projecting *your* personal views on Colbert, rather than listening to what is actually being said. Because, unlike Trump, you actually *can* make sense of Colbert when he uses words.
By comparison: If Hilary Clinton was president and he said the exact same thing, (ie: Hilary is Putin's cock holster), what would you say then? It's not homosexual anymore, yet the comment was clearly intended to be derogatory. So what is it now? Misogynist?
Btw: if I resist the urge to be sarcastic does that lower my IQ or your IQ or what exactly? Or you get some kind of recognition by the herd if you are unhappy or what?
Oh ok. You know, you'd save so much time if you just said "I'm a troll" right at the top of your post.
Do as we say, not as we do. Because we have some great software to sell your telecommuting workforce.
Actually, *you* are the one who isn't following it very well.
He did *not* say Trump is bad "because he's like a nasty gay person". He said that Trump is Putin's cock holster. The only way you could miss the context is if you deliberately ignored it.
Colbert's point is that Trump is a submissive puppet being controlled by Putin. So submissive, that he would happily suck Putin's dick if Putin told him to, which is directly the opposite of the macho tough guy image that Trump portrays himself as. He's being intentionally hyperbolic.
And I have no idea what you're even talking about WRT liberals. The thing about Colbert is that he his schtick revolves around sarcasm. People with low IQs tend to have great difficulty with the concept of sarcasm. So if you say conservatives prefer to avoid watching Colbert, I'll just let the dots connect themselves.
For those of you that don't get it, this is what authoritarianism actually looks like.
Colbert's comment was absolutely NOT homophobic, unless you consider associating Trump with gays to be insulting to gays (which, I would grant...).
What this is ACTUALLY about is the Trump administration not being happy that a prominent celebrity made a negative comment about Trump, and so they will do whatever they can to prosecute him, even if it means redefining the english language.
And by the way, THIS is what first amendment is for. Like it or not, Trump IS government. That means he is *required* to suck it up if people criticize him, just like every gov't body has done before him.
It's truely scary how you Americans are not just fucking yourselves over, but you're doing it with eyes wide open and cheers.
I didn't realize cloning has become so effective....
Now the only question is can we make enough black turtlenecks to keep up with demand?
Oh, this is just fucking dandy. It's not enough that the US voted a rambling side show carnival barker for a president, but now apparently his word-salad speeches have becoming in vogue and everyone else is starting to copy that style. When I tried to read the summary I thought I was having a stroke cause that quote bordered on nonsensical (and a perfect pattern copy of a typical Trump speech).
Not that I'm really all that surprised, since Trump has proven that bullshit word salad speeches actually work more effectively than honest communication.
Nice going America. I hope you're happy.
I can't wait to see the next device Microsoft puts out, then abandons 6 months later because it doesn't mystically sell like hotcakes right out of the gate.
So you get a free upgrade from bullshit to slightly more full featured bullshit.
Until they start making Enterprise readily available, this is all just handwaving.
It's so frustrating... Apple has been pissing me off to no end with their hardware decisions, and yet Microsoft has *still* managed to piss me off so much more that I would rather pay the Apple Dongle/Dingleberry Tax than go back to Windows..