Or maybe what he expected was most likely to let a drunk girl let him go?
Or maybe what he expected was most likely to let a drunk girl let him go?
I also recommend rEFInd for the bootloader if you don’t want to set anything up (and risk messing up). You don’t need to configure your boot entries, it scans for boot options and shows them with a graphical interface, so your Linux and Windows should just show up.
The issue is, when doing sudo, you have to put in the password when doing sudo. In this case, you put in your password, some flag is set, the computer does a full reset, and then after it reads the flag and decides to bypass the password system. That sounds like just a step away of figuring out how to set this flag without a password to bypass logging in.
I think an issue is, this sets up your computer to have a way to bypass putting your password in on boot. If you don’t care about security too much and don’t have things like secure boot and encryption, then that’s bypassable anyways… But otherwise, I’d be concerned about introducing systems that specifically bypass security.
Yup 😉
It’s a unit that’s been adopted by many technical mods, and conveniently sidesteps the issue of what the actual unit is by using the bucket as a reference. After all, in the wacky world of computer game, the actual measure doesn’t matter, so long as it’s consistent.
As a tech mod player, they hold exactly 1000mB of water
But thanks for being so dismissive.
Like you weren’t?
Why does every distro need yet another package manager?
I think most package managers - the ones actually part of a distro - are old. It’s not a question of why they all use different package managers, it’s a matter of them having developed them long ago before any single one matured.
That said, there are other considerations, which is also where new ones come from - different distros will have different approaches to package formats, dependency management, tracking of installed packages and system files, some might be implemented in a specific language due to the distro’s ideology, some might work in a different way (like NixOS), and there’s probably a whole bunch that just want a different interface.
You wouldn’t ask why Linux has a different way of viewing installed programs from Windows, and in the same vein packages are not a universal aspect of Linux, so each distro has to make its own choices.
Also I like pacman, some people complain about the commands being obscure, but I feel like they’re structured in a much more logical way. Don’t confuse it with yay though, pacman doesn’t build packages, and yay is specifically a wrapper around pacman that has different commands, while adding the ability to interact with the AUR.
To think some people would instead ridicule others when you can have so much fun together…
The 8 dependencies must be an optional dependency for some other package you already have installed. That said, that kind of stuff is the main reason I want to try NixOS - any time I install something, configure something, etc. I’m risking forgetting about it and getting tripped up over it down the line, with no good way to check.
When you pour a liquid, some bubbles form in it. In case of whey, those bubbles probably also stay coherent for a while longer.
Everyone being equally miserable could be preferable to some people being happy, since it gives everybody equal reasons to work towards improving the situation… Except, of course, the monkey paw would ensure that wouldn’t pan out
Right, so you consider calculators to be computers too? And I don’t mean the beefy scientific calculators, just simple ones with basic operations.
I think I saw a video mentioning they are illegal in some places, showing just why they’re so dangerous
I mean, couldn’t an addon just read the password you put into a login field, or send in a request, and send it off to their servers?
Man, and here I put too much effort writing a reply to a troll 😔
Does windows come preinstalled and preconfigured with more potentially vulnerable software on open ports?
I personally don’t value an antivirus that much, since it can only protect you from known threats, and even then, it only matters when you’re already getting compromised - but fair point for Windows, I suspect most distros come without antivirus preinstalled and preconfigured.
A firewall, on the other hand, only has value if you already have insecure services listening on your system - and I’m pretty sure on Windows those services aren’t gonna be blocked by the default settings. All that said though… Most Linux distros come with a firewall, something like iptables or firewalld, though not sure which ones would have it preconfigured for blocking connections by default.
So while I would dispute both of those points as not being that notable, I feel like other arguments in favor of Linux still stand, like reduced surface area, simpler kernel code, open and auditable source.
One big issue with Linux security for consumers (which I have to assume is what you’re talking about, since on the server side a sysadmin will want to configure any antivirus and firewall anyways) could be that different distributions will have different configurations - both for security and for preference-based things like desktop environments. This does unfortunately mean that users could find themselves installing less secure distros without realizing it, choosing them for their looks/usage patterns.
Question, how is Linux more insecure out of the box?
A beautiful B movie?
I think on mutable distros, or at least arch, you can run a command to reinstall all installed packages, which will verify integrity of the package files (signatures) and then ensure the files in the filesystem match package files? And I think it takes minutes at most, at least for typical setups.
I do think it’s also possible to just verify integrity of all files installed from a package, but I don’t remember if it required an external utility, pretty sure it’s on the arch wiki under pacman/tips and tricks