Linux was designed with a multiuser setup in mind. It is way easier in Linux to run software in varying contexts and different user permissions from the same surface (cli or gui). It is trivial to set up a "mail user" that perfectly sandboxes anything and everything away from the normal user that owns all the documents, effectively safeguarding them against a potential execution of malware code that encrypts them, something that can only be done with quite a bit more effort in Windows.
Another point is that "being executable" is a matter of file permission in Linux, not one of file name. The main difference here being that the former is in control of the person using the account and organizing the file, the latter in control of the person naming the file, which is usually the one sending it, not the one receiving it. So the whole "invoice.pdf.exe" spiel would not work in Linux. Not to mention that no Linux distribution I'm aware of is stupid enough to hide part of a file name by default, and instead goes out of its way to ensure that every executable file is very prominently identified as such, even in cli.
Finally Linux allows a lot finer granularity when it comes to elevated permissions rather than Windows' "all or nothing" approach. In Windows, you have to give every program that wants to install something full reign of your computer. Hell, some programs (and I'm not talking about legacy programs but rather usually programs that have some bullshit DRM schemes) require administrative privileges just to RUN. And the privileges you hand out in such cases are full. Basically any bullshit text editor you wish to install also gets full reign to mess with kernel level drivers because it needs to write in c:\programs. This is MUCH easier to handle in Linux. Not only do most distributions come pre-loaded with nearly everything and anything the average user might ever want to install, from a (mostly) reliable source repository that you can put some trust in, most things you wish to install you could technically install without elevated privileges as long as you only want them available for yourself, which is the case for 99% of desktop systems out there. Plus, as stated before, the option to run it sandboxed as its own user.
Which is also the case for many daemons, where you can run various servers with their own users, limiting any damage a bug can have when exploited to whatever that daemon is responsible or. Try, just TRY to configure Windows that way. 9 out of 10 services will simply barf on you if you try to run them as anything but system.
So no. While you're right that as soon as sudo comes into play the gloves are off and you're just as far as you are with Windows UAC, the reason to sudo are few and far between. Unlike Windows, where every other program you want to start and pretty much any you wish to install asks you for the master key to your system.
Less subconscious, more an expectation extrapolated from the rubbish produced recently. It seems to me that character flaws and character development have been outlawed in Hollywood.
Frankly, I don't give a shit what I come across to you, or anyone. If you want to attach a label to me, put it on the pile behind me, I'll ignore it later. I think there's still some room between fascist, communist, treehugger and neocon.
I would really love to see a series again that isn't concerned with not huwting a widdle feeling but actually manages to deliver an entertaining plot and convincing characters. Yes, that includes that characters have flaws and will face obstacles. Because without it is the same bland bullshit we've been fed time and again recently. I don't want a feelgood show, I want one where I can actually have some emotional attachments to the characters because they are human.
Fuck, I wouldn't be surprised if the aliens are the most human beings in this show because they are still "allowed" to have flaws without having to be totally evil.
Let's just wait and see how it pans out. Maybe they finally notice that plot and character development are more important than the all holy grail of diversity.
So the male hero falling in love with a dumb blonde bombshell is sexist against women and the female heroine falling in love with the dumb hunka-hunka muscle shirt idiot is sexist against women.
Could anyone give me an example what would NOT be?
In my job, like in my movies, I want the person that fits best for whatever is to be done. As far as I'm concerned, he/she/it/insertpronounofchoicehere can be pink and purple polka dotted.
If anything, this fine is a statement towards everyone else that would simply try to appease the EU with bullshit agreements they already know they don't want to keep.
Actually, all the all-powerful Jedi in Star Wars have their weak points. Usually hubris, which makes a lot of sense considering that they wield incredible powers compared to the average Joe Gunslinger.
That's also the basic theme of Star Wars, when you look at it closely. Break the rules and it will be your downfall. Also that prophecies will come true in ways that you don't expect. Because Anakin DID bring balance to the force, which was tipped incredibly far towards the light side before he turned Sith.
But that's not really the topic now.
With all their power, all Jedi have shortcomings that allow for character development and growth. I can't really say the same for some Star Trek characters I had to endure, especially in the more recent past.
The EU (or, more precisely, its lawyers) don't care if it's easy or hard. They say "don't do it", Facebook said "Oh don't worry, we can't anyway". Turns out they not only can but also do. Basically the EU is now pissed because they were lied to and now simply present Facebook the invoice for trying to bullshit them.
You did notice that it was one kiss in one episode of a 200+ episode show, I am confident. And while "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" was another show that picked racial tensions and slavery as a topic, it was by no means something that permeated the show.
I also consider Let That Be... a much stronger statement against racism and racial hate than that "notorious" kiss.
It had pretty much the same flaws that I get to see in too many movies today: We're returning to the movie stereotypes of the early days of cinema. Perfect heroes and villains doing evil for evil's sake. One dimensional, boring characters with zero room for development.
It had another problem with expectation vs. delivery (in all honesty, it wasn't a bad movie if you ask me, and it did actually work out as a slapstick comedy, it just didn't deliver to me what hearing "Ghostbusters" makes me expect). Imagine a Star Trek movie with a Star Wars setting. Both great franchises on their own, but imagine a Star Trek movie with the focus on a good vs. evil struggle and magic users and swordplay. You'd probably want your money back.
I also don't complain about SJWs and don't want "justice for men". Actually, I don't really care much for either. I just want interesting characters in my movies. Characters that have flaws they struggle with, that they have to overcome. Villains that have a goal and their own vision, despite being evil. A really good example thereof was Ledger's Joker in the Dark Knight. Yes, he was an insane comic supervillain, but he gave him a purpose, an idea, a goal that he wanted to achieve. He wanted to show the world that everyone is, in his core, as bad as he is. And that's something I'm missing in more contemporary movies.
What we get today is more and more Mary-Sue heroes with unbelievably evil villains to contrast them. I'm sorry, but I want to understand the purpose of the characters. Without purpose, I cannot really care about them. And if I can't care about the characters in a movie, why bother watching it?
I hope nobody here thinks that this is a Trump-exclusive. He's in really good company, the more exclusive and elitist a club or establishment, the more likely their non-physical security sucks big time. Why? Same reason as everywhere, nobody who could sensibly demand it knows jack shit about it, so why bother throwing money at it? Worse, securing something invariably cuts into its usability. I'm actually surprised those access points had any kind of security. None of the oh-so-important people complained yet that they're too stupid to configure their toy to connect? Oh, sorry, let me rephrase it: None of them complained yet that you idiots cannot configure your computer thingie right so their expensive and highly intelligent device can connect to it? Because MY thing was expensive and it's very high tech, so if it doesn't work, it OBVIOUSLY has to be that you're too stupid to configure YOUR end!
This is basically why security sucks in such places. Not the physical, mind you. But IT security usually is a mess. And as long as there are computer illiterates who dictate what has to be and what must not be, this also will not change.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, but no.
Linux was designed with a multiuser setup in mind. It is way easier in Linux to run software in varying contexts and different user permissions from the same surface (cli or gui). It is trivial to set up a "mail user" that perfectly sandboxes anything and everything away from the normal user that owns all the documents, effectively safeguarding them against a potential execution of malware code that encrypts them, something that can only be done with quite a bit more effort in Windows.
Another point is that "being executable" is a matter of file permission in Linux, not one of file name. The main difference here being that the former is in control of the person using the account and organizing the file, the latter in control of the person naming the file, which is usually the one sending it, not the one receiving it. So the whole "invoice.pdf.exe" spiel would not work in Linux. Not to mention that no Linux distribution I'm aware of is stupid enough to hide part of a file name by default, and instead goes out of its way to ensure that every executable file is very prominently identified as such, even in cli.
Finally Linux allows a lot finer granularity when it comes to elevated permissions rather than Windows' "all or nothing" approach. In Windows, you have to give every program that wants to install something full reign of your computer. Hell, some programs (and I'm not talking about legacy programs but rather usually programs that have some bullshit DRM schemes) require administrative privileges just to RUN. And the privileges you hand out in such cases are full. Basically any bullshit text editor you wish to install also gets full reign to mess with kernel level drivers because it needs to write in c:\programs. This is MUCH easier to handle in Linux. Not only do most distributions come pre-loaded with nearly everything and anything the average user might ever want to install, from a (mostly) reliable source repository that you can put some trust in, most things you wish to install you could technically install without elevated privileges as long as you only want them available for yourself, which is the case for 99% of desktop systems out there. Plus, as stated before, the option to run it sandboxed as its own user.
Which is also the case for many daemons, where you can run various servers with their own users, limiting any damage a bug can have when exploited to whatever that daemon is responsible or. Try, just TRY to configure Windows that way. 9 out of 10 services will simply barf on you if you try to run them as anything but system.
So no. While you're right that as soon as sudo comes into play the gloves are off and you're just as far as you are with Windows UAC, the reason to sudo are few and far between. Unlike Windows, where every other program you want to start and pretty much any you wish to install asks you for the master key to your system.
Yeah, those pussies, wanting to sleep between working 18 hours 7 days a week. Next they'll demand payment, I tell you.
Big words for someone who isn't bullet proof and living in a country where having a gun is legal.
I'm pretty sure that you do already feel how the future will be for those of us who actually do the work.
If we're talking about a love story, great idea.
If we're talking any other genre, please let me get to the exit.
Want to discuss my problem with unbelievable, stereotypical, bland and flawless characters now?
I just had this mental picture of Obama fucking Merkel...
Odd. Last time I checked I was neither in the US nor an average, straight, white male. And it still doesn't appeal to me.
Where can you still watch that episode? After all, Lincoln uses the N-word to describe Uhura, you can't have that on TV!
Less subconscious, more an expectation extrapolated from the rubbish produced recently. It seems to me that character flaws and character development have been outlawed in Hollywood.
Frankly, I don't give a shit what I come across to you, or anyone. If you want to attach a label to me, put it on the pile behind me, I'll ignore it later. I think there's still some room between fascist, communist, treehugger and neocon.
I would really love to see a series again that isn't concerned with not huwting a widdle feeling but actually manages to deliver an entertaining plot and convincing characters. Yes, that includes that characters have flaws and will face obstacles. Because without it is the same bland bullshit we've been fed time and again recently. I don't want a feelgood show, I want one where I can actually have some emotional attachments to the characters because they are human.
Fuck, I wouldn't be surprised if the aliens are the most human beings in this show because they are still "allowed" to have flaws without having to be totally evil.
Let's just wait and see how it pans out. Maybe they finally notice that plot and character development are more important than the all holy grail of diversity.
Why would I? I sit here about 1000m above sea level, all I'm asking for is to be allowed to hunt those for fun that try to escape the flood.
Why do you think calling a congressman would change anything in any way?
They will be as accountable as the ones causing it when it turns out to be true.
So the male hero falling in love with a dumb blonde bombshell is sexist against women and the female heroine falling in love with the dumb hunka-hunka muscle shirt idiot is sexist against women.
Could anyone give me an example what would NOT be?
In my job, like in my movies, I want the person that fits best for whatever is to be done. As far as I'm concerned, he/she/it/insertpronounofchoicehere can be pink and purple polka dotted.
Like it can be undone anymore.
If anything, this fine is a statement towards everyone else that would simply try to appease the EU with bullshit agreements they already know they don't want to keep.
Actually, all the all-powerful Jedi in Star Wars have their weak points. Usually hubris, which makes a lot of sense considering that they wield incredible powers compared to the average Joe Gunslinger.
That's also the basic theme of Star Wars, when you look at it closely. Break the rules and it will be your downfall. Also that prophecies will come true in ways that you don't expect. Because Anakin DID bring balance to the force, which was tipped incredibly far towards the light side before he turned Sith.
But that's not really the topic now.
With all their power, all Jedi have shortcomings that allow for character development and growth. I can't really say the same for some Star Trek characters I had to endure, especially in the more recent past.
One sledgehammer in 200+ episodes vs. a dozen sledgehammers in a single movie. Compare.
The EU (or, more precisely, its lawyers) don't care if it's easy or hard. They say "don't do it", Facebook said "Oh don't worry, we can't anyway". Turns out they not only can but also do. Basically the EU is now pissed because they were lied to and now simply present Facebook the invoice for trying to bullshit them.
You did notice that it was one kiss in one episode of a 200+ episode show, I am confident. And while "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" was another show that picked racial tensions and slavery as a topic, it was by no means something that permeated the show.
I also consider Let That Be... a much stronger statement against racism and racial hate than that "notorious" kiss.
It had pretty much the same flaws that I get to see in too many movies today: We're returning to the movie stereotypes of the early days of cinema. Perfect heroes and villains doing evil for evil's sake. One dimensional, boring characters with zero room for development.
It had another problem with expectation vs. delivery (in all honesty, it wasn't a bad movie if you ask me, and it did actually work out as a slapstick comedy, it just didn't deliver to me what hearing "Ghostbusters" makes me expect). Imagine a Star Trek movie with a Star Wars setting. Both great franchises on their own, but imagine a Star Trek movie with the focus on a good vs. evil struggle and magic users and swordplay. You'd probably want your money back.
I also don't complain about SJWs and don't want "justice for men". Actually, I don't really care much for either. I just want interesting characters in my movies. Characters that have flaws they struggle with, that they have to overcome. Villains that have a goal and their own vision, despite being evil. A really good example thereof was Ledger's Joker in the Dark Knight. Yes, he was an insane comic supervillain, but he gave him a purpose, an idea, a goal that he wanted to achieve. He wanted to show the world that everyone is, in his core, as bad as he is. And that's something I'm missing in more contemporary movies.
What we get today is more and more Mary-Sue heroes with unbelievably evil villains to contrast them. I'm sorry, but I want to understand the purpose of the characters. Without purpose, I cannot really care about them. And if I can't care about the characters in a movie, why bother watching it?
I hope nobody here thinks that this is a Trump-exclusive. He's in really good company, the more exclusive and elitist a club or establishment, the more likely their non-physical security sucks big time. Why? Same reason as everywhere, nobody who could sensibly demand it knows jack shit about it, so why bother throwing money at it? Worse, securing something invariably cuts into its usability. I'm actually surprised those access points had any kind of security. None of the oh-so-important people complained yet that they're too stupid to configure their toy to connect? Oh, sorry, let me rephrase it: None of them complained yet that you idiots cannot configure your computer thingie right so their expensive and highly intelligent device can connect to it? Because MY thing was expensive and it's very high tech, so if it doesn't work, it OBVIOUSLY has to be that you're too stupid to configure YOUR end!
This is basically why security sucks in such places. Not the physical, mind you. But IT security usually is a mess. And as long as there are computer illiterates who dictate what has to be and what must not be, this also will not change.
Now wouldn't that be a show that tells us more about our character than its characters? I think that would be a very interesting concept to explore.