Comment by Dalewyn | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Dalewyn | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

For starters it's security theater, given everyone and their dog prefixes sudo to all commands without much thinking. There are also some who just smash in sudo -i as the first thing they ever do upon boot (guilty as charged) because they suffer RSI from typing sudo a trillion times.

There's also this impression that the operating system is just secure and you as the user are just protected like it's a law of physics. Spoiler alert, you are not and it's not a law of physics either. It's still your responsibility to secure the computer if you so desire and otherwise not do dumb shit like copypasta'ing commands from the internet.

I'm not even going to get into the politics that are package managers and repos, that's just straight bullshit that has more to do with human nature than computer science.

Speaking of politics, most of the FOSS community at large hates users using and administrators administering computers how they want. You must subscribe to the One Libre Way(tm) or you are a heathen doing it wrong. So much for freedom. The Windows community meanwhile is mostly composed of jaded engineers who are just happy to see others get stuff done and get through another day in one piece.

Windows from the start places the user at the controls with mostly no child safety locks in place (and you can remove what is there easily, eg: UAC), and with that power you have to accept that if you end up hosing the system the problem is you because Windows doesn't even pretend to really protect you.

Having the sheer power to hose Windows with a single Powershell line is what freedom is. Freedom is both delightful and horrifying.

> Windows from the start places the user at the controls

Would this be the same Windows that now requires TPM2, UEFI Secure Boot, a Microsoft account to log in, and a special boot mode to use drivers not signed by Microsoft?

What I am writing below I mean genuinely, without malice, and in the hope it helps dispel some of the conclusions you have expressed above, if not for Linux itself (which I do not normally use) then for other Unix operating systems such as FreeBSD[0].

> For starters it's security theater, given everyone and their dog prefixes sudo to all commands without much thinking.

Setting aside the hyperbole, such as "everyone and their dog prefixes sudo to all commands" and "most of the FOSS community at large hates users", user/group/other permissions are one part of security in depth. Excessive use of sudo is indicative of an improperly configured system or use of software which lacks understanding of the OS which runs it. Both are causes for concern.

> Windows from the start places the user at the controls with mostly no child safety locks in place ...

To continue your analogy, child safety locks exist to minimize avoidable catastrophic situations for those unable to do same.

> ... with that power you have to accept that if you end up hosing the system the problem is you because Windows doesn't even pretend to really protect you.

At first glance, this has a "victim blaming" flavour to it along the lines of "you should have known better." A more concerning implication is that this perspective does not take into consideration what happens when a blackhat attack is perpetrated.

What benefit is "the sheer power to hose Windows with a single Powershell line" when it is not you whom executes it?

0 - https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/handbook/introduction/

You will have to excuse me for effectively ignoring the rest of your comment since what I'm about to point out more than makes up for the things you pointed out.

>What benefit is "the sheer power to hose Windows with a single Powershell line" when it is not you whom executes it?

The benefit is the sheer power to hose Windows with a single Powershell line.

In case that doesn't make sense, let me put it this way: The benefit is the power to do whatever you want with Windows.

Windows essentially will not say no to what you ask of it, you have the freedom to do with your computer as you desire with Windows. With this power, this freedom, this virtue comes responsibility. You as the user must secure the system as desired from the ground up, you have the power to do so and the responsibility.

Computers are tools, Windows enabling your ability to use your computer as a tool is a virtue that is priceless especially in this day and age.

If you don't believe me, consider that Windows brought forth the era of personal computing to the commons and continues to enable them by nurturing an ecosystem that can cater to almost all users' desires that now spans literally decades.

> >What benefit is "the sheer power to hose Windows with a single Powershell line" when it is not you whom executes it?

> The benefit is the sheer power to hose Windows with a single Powershell line.

> In case that doesn't make sense, let me put it this way: The benefit is the power to do whatever you want with Windows.

The point which I think I am failing to convey is not about limiting what a person whom owns a computer can do with it. Instead, it is that computers interacting with other computers can be introduced to code which is not "whatever you want with Windows", but instead "whatever someone else wants to do with your Windows."

In the case you presented above, nowhere is there consideration of malicious actors. Were this not a real concern, there would be no market for virus scanners (be they for Windows or other operating systems).

Here is an exercise to try out - replace first person tense in the text above with the equivalent of "someone other than me."

I truly don't understand your desire to remove Linux file permissions. I also don't get why you think it's difficult to do so. There are plenty of ways for you to enable yourself to hose your machine without having to enter a password.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com