"All software is large."
FALSE.
But this statement does not surprise me. It is this distorted view of programs that is a large part of the "security" problem, in my opinion.
26 karma · joined October 23, 2015
FALSE.
But this statement does not surprise me. It is this distorted view of programs that is a large part of the "security" problem, in my opinion.
It also has to do with design goals and priorities. Layer upon layer of cruft, with an OS weighing in at multiple GB, is not a confidence builder in the "security line". It also includes default configurations.
There are reasons that so many Windows instances have been and are now part of botnets. There are reasons why the security updates have increased in quantity and frequency over the years and appear to be neverending.
Some of those reasons have to do with design and priorities. Others with default configurations that Redmond assumes no user will ever change.
No amount of PR can change reality (e.g., massive botnets of Windows users), although it might change people's perception of reality.
Also, I never said "major competitors". I said "other OS". For example, the OS I use is probably not a "major competitor". It is much smaller and open source. That is what is important to me.
If Microsoft ever released the Windows source code, what would we find? Simplicity?
How easy would it be to audit?
Bias disclosure: I like small software. Windows and most all other software released by Microsoft is large, or packaged in such a way as to necessitate a large download/install.
Certainly they have improved over the last decade, but who hasn't? Not to mention they have boatloads of cash to throw at the problem.
But the fact^W opinion remains Windows is still the easiest target of any OS. A user can configure any OS to be less secure, and other OS can become as popular a target as Windows but there's something about Windows that makes it a far greater liability than all the rest.
It's closed source.
How are you ever going to assess the quality of this software in terms of security? By reading the New York Times?
Boatloads of cash also buys PR.
Network settings? Is this like Chromecast where they try to prevent the user from changing them (gateway, DNS, etc.)?
I always liked that there are choices of different sized images (.img not .iso), including xfce and especially the minimal "standard".
And also that the compressed kernel vmlinuz and ramdisk initrd are available separately for each.
Are these choices going to disappear? What are all those downstream projects going to use now?
http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current-live/i386/webboo...
Not every potential buyer will agree on the "worth" of X.
Ultimately X is not worth anything unless and until X is sold.
Perhaps the tense is wrong.
Not what _is_ X worth, but what _will be_ the worth of X (when X is sold).
In the end, "worth" is "price paid" (by some buyer).
Should we care how Google, Facebook and others make so much cash? Should it matter?
Honest question.
(The author suggests the firesales by these companies when things go south will involve internet users' personal information. I agree.)
Does it work with Javascript disabled?
Does it work with text-only browsers?
How about netcat?
Do I have to get a "smartphone" to make this work?
And today, in a world with far more CPU homogeneity, we have an endless stream of nerds suggesting to HN languages to "replace" C.
I am never sure what "replace" means when used in this context. I'm still using assembly language; other languages cannot match it. In the same way, FORTRAN is still being used. Perhaps "supplement" should be substituted for "replace".
Enduring fact: "Your Father's" languages are more performant than the new ones you hold in high regard.
Because performance will always be important to some people, I doubt these old languages will ever disappear from use.
Unless someone can construct a compiler that accepts a different "language" and produces more performant object code, these languages will never be "replaced".
Sounds good to me. I see UEFI as an added, redundant, poor quality OS. I'm a connoisseur of bootloaders and live in a TTY so UEFI is another command line that I do not need. You said it best: its features are "rarely used"; it just provides unwanted third parties with another "layer to hide in".
It is difficult to believe that CF does not have a "special relationship" with YC, give PG's close ties to Project Honeypot, the precursor to Cloudflare. Nothing wrong with that.
And one could argue even the "informative and well-written" posts are always done with a purpose: recruit developers. These blog posts almost always read like a PR piece described in PG's "Submarine" essay. Again, that's fine.
But they also get promoted to the first page on HN with uncanny efficiency.
Obviously it becomes easier the more you understand the subject area. As student you might have little understanding. That's why you are studying!
In my case, initial downloads were readings for my courses or papers referenced in handouts. I just let my curiousity guide me from there. But I'll admit I also had some background knowledge to begin with, gleaned from work experience.
In some (most) scientific discplines, every paper begins by citing background material. You should gather and save those papers. No matter how old.
When you read the more general papers, and the other background material, in chronological order, you are in a better position to understand more specific, recent work.
Basically you are building a foundation for understanding the current state of research in a subject area. At least you will always be able to get up to speed more easily by having the proper foundation.
Of course, when you're at university you may be busy with other pursuits and you may not have the time nor inclination to read all those older papers. This is what you download and save. Sometimes there are scientific "encyclopedias" or other compilations. These can be good in their own right and also a further source for references pointing to more worthy downloads.
When in doubt a general rule is to download papers that are highly cited.
There is a vast amount of general knowledge that will never be offered on Wikipedia.[1] It is the best kind: peer-reviewed. Wikipedia and clones (Knol, etc.) wanted or tried to become "peer-reviewed" sources but this idea has never really succceeded on the open web. That is why this issue with academic publishing will continue to simmer.
1. At least, not until academic publishing undergos some changes.
Even more, it is student tuition that underwrites for the exorbitant annual license fees the university libraries are forced to pay.
I always pondered how much of my tuition was going toward these subscriptions.
I was probably one of the library's top users of expensive journals by volume; I knew how much it cost the library to provide access and I knew I was paying for it. At one point one of the scientific journal search engines gave me a prize. Students: use the library's journal subscriptions. You are paying for it. Download PDF's like there is no tomorrow.
There are exceptions, but for most students, after you graduate, you will never again have such access to so much peer-reviewed research.