That has to be the dumbest idea coming out of FLOSS (not counting anything web-related) in years. But at least someone realised that even after 20+ Years Of Linux On The Desktop, there's still no good Free™ desktop OS offering.
37 posts • joined 28 Sep 2012
Now you can have a twist of 2019 in your 2012: Microsoft goes back to the future with Edge on Windows 7/8
Doesn't make sense
The people stuck on 7 or 8 have no use for Edge.
On the other side you have paranoid nutcases like the FLOSSers or gamers who hate the guts of anything Microsoft and refuse to go with the times, while obediently shoveling money and data down the gullets of Google, EA, Ubisoft, or whomever. Those would never in a thousand years even consider looking at Edge.
All in all, it's wasted money and effort.
Patch blues-day: Microsoft yanks code after some PCs are rendered super secure (and unbootable) following update
Razer – perfectly happy to sell you a laptop for over $2,000, but when it comes to fixing security holes... tough sh*t
Gamers are the best target for those attacks
It's still commonplace in gamer circles to randomly run crap as admin if something doesn't work. Games routinely ask for admin privileges for whatever reason, patchers install root certificates and nobody thinks it's wrong. Something crashes? Sure, rightclick, run as admin. Kid broke into the liquor stash? Sure, here are the car keys, hope you learn from your mistakes son!
Thunder, thunder, thunder... Thunderclap: Feel the magic, hear the roar, macOS, Windows pwnage tools are loose
DNSSEC is a pain in the butt.
Too many half-baked standards, lots of concessions to legacy low-performance systems (KSK/ZSK dychotomy for example, or reliance on outdated crypto standards), stupid set-up requirements and performance at different registries (the Irish all but require you to fax in key material, if you're dealing with the Danish it may be impossible or at least hard for your registrar to automate processes, and generally you will have a lot of manual work to be done and paid for somewhere), and it's generally high-maintenance for the zone maintainer. You need to somehow set up and maintain a rollover mechanism, cater to all the above idiocy for every single registry you're dealing with, and then stupid ISPs will still randomly break name resolution so your company will randomly be unreachable in most of a country if it's the ex-state-telecom monopoly deciding to be the one.
It's just pain from start to finish, for little to no gain.
It's a bit like modern Web "standards": they're fine if you're a stereotypical tech hipster doing your little dysfunctional demo page, but once you need to do some work and generate revenue, you start to realise that all the specifications are more like rough guidelines that nobody follows and you are dealing with a deluge of fragmented little ecosystems, and if you can you just skip over the mess.
I don't get it.
Problem: Network nodes break TLS.
Proposed solution: Wrap TLS in a *really* dumb transport (no, HTTP, is *not* the solution to your problems, it *is* a problem), make it less efficient, slow it down, and basically give it that mangy "web" smell.
How does that solve any real problems? It's still TLS, and the snoop boxes will just learn to screw with that as well. All this does is pollute the RFC ecosystem even more with yet another ill-conceived and badly thought out band-aid that nobody needs, and that will eventually spawn the mandatory half-dozen errata and clarification pamphlets. Maybe the encapsulating HTTP connection could be protected too, oh I know, let's use TLS?
Re: "Not enabled 2FA" ???? FFS ?
Twitter's second factor is SMS. They can't send messages to my current carrier, so I had to disable it when I switched there. Twitter don't offer any kind of contact venue to notify them of those issues either, and they don't seem interested in offering anything actually working.
Because DNS works so well. All the fancy little schemes abusing DNS seem to be based around the idea of DNSSEC which, so far, has massive issues (ISP caches break every time keys roll over, management is a nightmare, registries even more so). Looking at the enthusiasm of providers to implement or support that abortion, it may not be something you'll want to base your communication on.
As a first step, it would be nice if it was possible to use TLS between mail servers, but even that fails horribly with many servers not even supporting TLS 1.0 (try using ECDSA or even just SHA-2 on your production systems, I dare you) and not falling back to unencrypted transport when they realise that your system doesn't support export ciphers or other stone-age shenanigans.
We call that TV corp "Asocial TV"
Other names are "Unemployment TV" or "Hartz 4 TV" (after unemployment legislation forcing people into poverty).
Those channels exist purely because people love to see that there's always someone at least a thousand times more stupid and asocial than themselves.
All things considered, it's rather a gain to the spectrum.