Never believe any claims that data is "anonymized". Even if they are making a best effort an anonymization, doing so in a manner that actually works and doesn't destroy that value that you're collecting the data for is an incredibly difficult task. I am unaware of anybody who has successfully done it yet.
It's been 30 years, and as long as my browser shows the web page, I don't see what else it needs to do.
Using the web without a full complement of tools like Javascript blocking, popup blocking, XSS & clickjack protection, etc. is pretty hellish. It makes huge portions of the web straight-up unusable.
I've been testing the Firefox beta and I have to say -- once NoScript is available for it (and assuming that it didn't have to lose any important functionality for the port), then I'll stay with Firefox.
However, after testing a bunch of alternatives, I think I've settled on the one that works best for me, should I need it: Waterfox.
I don't think we can even assume that there are any attacks at all. I'm not saying there aren't, but I am saying the what is being reported on this stuff is obvious nonsense, which leaves us with literally no data on which to even form a hypothesis, let alone draw conclusions.
Tell me about it. Because of the vibrantly competitive broadband market in my area, I have to use Comcast to get internet. I also get basic cable because cable+internet is cheaper than just internet alone.
I have no interest in the television part of the package, and even returned the cable box to Comcast so I didn't have to pay the rental on it, so I couldn't watch it if I wanted to.
Windows has come a long way in terms of stability (although I would argue that it's gone backwards in usability after Windows 7). But that's not quite what I mean. What I mean is that I fear if Linux became very popular in the mass market, that would push it to be more like Windows -- which would be a loss.
Your examples of systemd, etc., are very well taken -- and in my view are examples of precisely what I mean. They are all the result of efforts to make Linux more mainstream.
Well, that's hardly a "consumer level" Linux install -- but ignoring that, I can easily point to similar examples on literally every OS I've ever used.
1) Linux is not secure enough to withstand "attention from hackers", and
This is a very misleading way of putting it. Linux isn't magic, and security isn't a static thing that you either have or don't. It's a constant process. If an operating system is popular, economics dictates that it will attract more criminal activity, which means that more resources have to be diverted to defend against it, which means there are fewer resources to actually make the OS better.
2) Linux is not well-architected. It cannot be seamlessly extended to offer new functionality.
This is quite a leap. It isn't an architectural issue, it's an issue of what people want their OS to be like. If Linux were as popular as, say Windows, it would probably look and act a lot like Windows, as it would be catering the same market. I think this would be a terrible thing.
That's a good thing. It will make linux more secure.
It's not a good thing -- security is a constant arms race. That's like saying "getting mugged more often is a good thing because it will make you a better fighter".
Did you not notice the million different linux distributions that all cater to every possible individual?
And why do you think there's such a wide variety? If Linux became a mass-market item, then everybody would start chasing the market, which means that there would be less variety as all the distros converged while competing for those sweet mass-market dollars.
I do NOT recommend Linux to people. In fact, I say to NOT use it. Why? Cause most people want to play games, browse the web, do their email and watch NetFlix.
For them - use Windows.
Exactly this -- although I don't necessarily recommend Windows. I recommend whichever operating system they are already most familiar with.
As I understand it, that would be very difficult. Your missiles would have to accelerate and fly more slowly, giving much more time for defenses to do a "friend-or-foe" determination and making them easier to shoot down.
Slashdot Mirror
The proper question is "why would anyone buy a Cisco "secure" appliance after this?"
For the same reason that they continued to use Cisco products after the last time a backdoor was found in them?
once the data is anonymized
Never believe any claims that data is "anonymized". Even if they are making a best effort an anonymization, doing so in a manner that actually works and doesn't destroy that value that you're collecting the data for is an incredibly difficult task. I am unaware of anybody who has successfully done it yet.
I'm not sure about wireless mobile chipsets.
I've yet to own a phone that I couldn't change the MAC address on.
It's been 30 years, and as long as my browser shows the web page, I don't see what else it needs to do.
Using the web without a full complement of tools like Javascript blocking, popup blocking, XSS & clickjack protection, etc. is pretty hellish. It makes huge portions of the web straight-up unusable.
What's wrong with Opera?
It's essentially Chrome. If Chrome is a browser that sits well with you, then nothing's wrong with Opera, although I'd wonder why not just use Chrome.
I've been testing the Firefox beta and I have to say -- once NoScript is available for it (and assuming that it didn't have to lose any important functionality for the port), then I'll stay with Firefox.
However, after testing a bunch of alternatives, I think I've settled on the one that works best for me, should I need it: Waterfox.
I don't think we can even assume that there are any attacks at all. I'm not saying there aren't, but I am saying the what is being reported on this stuff is obvious nonsense, which leaves us with literally no data on which to even form a hypothesis, let alone draw conclusions.
Nothing about this "sonic attack" story makes any sense whatsoever from a physics point of view.
This whole thing reeks of "cover story". I think we can all safely assume that we have no idea whatsoever what the truth of the situation is.
it was your friends, families and neighbors who are the ones who actually put him in charge
Umm, no, it wasn't.
Tell me about it. Because of the vibrantly competitive broadband market in my area, I have to use Comcast to get internet. I also get basic cable because cable+internet is cheaper than just internet alone.
I have no interest in the television part of the package, and even returned the cable box to Comcast so I didn't have to pay the rental on it, so I couldn't watch it if I wanted to.
Indeed, you are correct. I was wrong.
You were saying that I made a claim that I never made, and demanding that I support it. I'm sorry that it's so hard for you to understand things.
Ajit Pai is Trump's sort of guy -- advancing the desires of big business over what's good for the average joe.
That's pretty sweet, thank you! I never thought that I'd reach a point where I found Aero to be desirable, but here we are...
Windows has come a long way in terms of stability (although I would argue that it's gone backwards in usability after Windows 7). But that's not quite what I mean. What I mean is that I fear if Linux became very popular in the mass market, that would push it to be more like Windows -- which would be a loss.
Your examples of systemd, etc., are very well taken -- and in my view are examples of precisely what I mean. They are all the result of efforts to make Linux more mainstream.
Well, that's hardly a "consumer level" Linux install -- but ignoring that, I can easily point to similar examples on literally every OS I've ever used.
1) Linux is not secure enough to withstand "attention from hackers", and
This is a very misleading way of putting it. Linux isn't magic, and security isn't a static thing that you either have or don't. It's a constant process. If an operating system is popular, economics dictates that it will attract more criminal activity, which means that more resources have to be diverted to defend against it, which means there are fewer resources to actually make the OS better.
2) Linux is not well-architected. It cannot be seamlessly extended to offer new functionality.
This is quite a leap. It isn't an architectural issue, it's an issue of what people want their OS to be like. If Linux were as popular as, say Windows, it would probably look and act a lot like Windows, as it would be catering the same market. I think this would be a terrible thing.
That's a good thing. It will make linux more secure.
It's not a good thing -- security is a constant arms race. That's like saying "getting mugged more often is a good thing because it will make you a better fighter".
Did you not notice the million different linux distributions that all cater to every possible individual?
And why do you think there's such a wide variety? If Linux became a mass-market item, then everybody would start chasing the market, which means that there would be less variety as all the distros converged while competing for those sweet mass-market dollars.
From the very first days I ever heard the term, there were only two sorts of people who ever used it:
1) Linux people who were making a joke
2) Linux-haters
It's a meaningless thing.
You'd expect that if it's pre-installed then everything would work fantastic.
Why in the world would you expect that?
Windows & MAC now automagically update behind the scenes and mostly work.
I don't know about Mac, but if Windows upgrades were so magical, why do I end up cursing Microsoft every time they happen?
I do NOT recommend Linux to people. In fact, I say to NOT use it. Why? Cause most people want to play games, browse the web, do their email and watch NetFlix.
For them - use Windows.
Exactly this -- although I don't necessarily recommend Windows. I recommend whichever operating system they are already most familiar with.
Post your calculations so we can laugh a little more...
Why are you asking me to support an assertion that I never made?
As I understand it, that would be very difficult. Your missiles would have to accelerate and fly more slowly, giving much more time for defenses to do a "friend-or-foe" determination and making them easier to shoot down.
Linux is way too hard to use for most grandmothers.
This hasn't been true for years. Well, let me rephrase that: Linux hasn't been any harder to use than Windows for years.