err but Linux is mmer secure....derp derp
Please don't post like this here.
Is the Linux Desktop less secure than Windows 10? [pdf]
171–180 of 190 posts
Re: Is the Linux Desktop less secure than Windows 10? [pdf]
#172It's interesting that the problems are all with things that I actively dislike about the modern Linux desktop. I mean, I guess it's OK that it creates thumbnails of images...but, the tendency to grind away for seconds whenever opening a big folder (Windows does it, too, I guess) is just annoying. I end up using command line most of the time for file management tasks because it's too slow and cumbersome to use the UI.…
If you are using nautilus, I don't think it's the thumbnailing.
Try opening /usr/bin and it takes longer than you would expect.
From what I remember nautilus does excessive stat calls, looking for thumbnails - it could definitely be much faster.
Re: Is the Linux Desktop less secure than Windows 10? [pdf]
#173It's interesting that the problems are all with things that I actively dislike about the modern Linux desktop. I mean, I guess it's OK that it creates thumbnails of images...but, the tendency to grind away for seconds whenever opening a big folder (Windows does it, too, I guess) is just annoying. I end up using command line most of the time for file management tasks because it's too slow and cumbersome to use the UI.…
Nobody talked about qubes os - one great out of the box linux desktop: www.qubes-os.org
Re: Is the Linux Desktop less secure than Windows 10? [pdf]
#174Nobody talked about qubes os - one great out of the box linux desktop: www.qubes-os.org
Re: Is the Linux Desktop less secure than Windows 10? [pdf]
#175Important bit is on the later slides: Issues on most codecs/parsers can be prevented by sandboxing. An exploding parser should never affect other processes, files, etc. Seccomp (bpf version) is only available since 2012 really, but I hope more apps will start picking it up. It's pretty simple it should become a shameful thing not to use it in new apps.
No need to wait, you can sandbox your applications now: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Security#Sandboxing_app...
You can apply the generic sandboxes to the whole process, but that's not the same as a targeted seccomp. For example, you can use one of the external jails to stop your media app from using the network, and that's great. But what if you want to stream content from the internet? Without changing the source, you can't apply the no-network rule only to the decoding part. That's what still needs work from the maintainers.
Re: Is the Linux Desktop less secure than Windows 10? [pdf]
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why is getting the latest security updates giving a false sense of security exactly? Because in quite a few distributions you don't get security updates reliably. For example Debian Stable excludes most WebKit-based libraries from their update policy. https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/c... So users of browsers like Midori and Epiphany or E-Mail-Clients like Evolution on Debian Stable, curre…
You. Are. Not. Supposed. To. Install. Debian. Stable. On. A. Desktop. Machine. How many times will this have to be repeated? Stable is for servers. If you're running webkit based libraries on your server you have other issues. For desktops, both Testing and Unstable are the valid options.
that's like ... your opinion. the way you try tu make it look as if it's a widely accepted best practice among Debian users is not cool. Debian stable is a perfectly viable distribution for desktop use.
Re: Is the Linux Desktop less secure than Windows 10? [pdf]
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
It helps to be multilingual :)
Why? Surely using two multiple languages competently is a fingerprinting characteristic? Unless you manage to use them only in different contexts in different hardware...
Different hardware, VMs, VPNs, Tor, etc, and combinations thereof.
Re: Is the Linux Desktop less secure than Windows 10? [pdf]
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hasn't it been replaced by slocate, mlocate, tlocate or another variant since ?
Yes, and there were a few implementations from different groups, as you would expect. I'm typing this on a current Arch and locate, mlocate and slocate are all available from the mlocate package.
They are most likely symlinks to mlocate
Re: Is the Linux Desktop less secure than Windows 10? [pdf]
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's pretty well known. There are several workarounds. One is to optimise view for general, not images or video or sound. Another is to "reset your folders" http://superuser.com/questions/1097394/windows-10-download-f...
Might another option be to have the default view be "List"? I'm not sure if that's possible, but I've been wanting to do this for years.
In everything from XP through 7, you can. Select the view you want to make default, then press Alt to display and activate the menubar. In the Tools menu, choose Folder Options; on the View tab, click Apply to All Folders. Current Explorer windows may need to be closed and reopened to show the change; all newly opened windows from now on will take the view you chose as their default, but also remember any changes you make to a given folder's view.
I generally prefer Details view myself, but know no reason why this shouldn't work for List or any other. Enjoy!
Re: Is the Linux Desktop less secure than Windows 10? [pdf]
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, Windows 10 has become a form of spyware out of the box, it sends information about what one types and does to Microsoft. They use dark patterns so that users don't disable it and stick to the defaults. macOS is also very chatty, but privacy is usually given more consideration. Not at all as bad as MS.
"macOS ... privacy is usually given more consideration" Definitely not my feeling last time I upgraded macOs: I had to give my full name, address, * phone number * and * * bank details * * while the upgrade is free of cost. I don't like having these details hanging on server somewhere on Internet when it is not needed. I felt like my profile was given a lost of consideration by Apple, not my privacy.
Yeah * you don't have to enter your * bank account, there's instructions on the * Apple site.