this resonates so much...
"ok, which one of you crackheads decided an unconstrained recursive C function was a good idea right her... oh."
qprimed
joined 1 year ago
this thread is it in a nut shell. the x11/wayland situation can trip things when it really should be super seamless. that will be fixed soon enough.
if you are ok with an Ubuntu base (which these days is drifting further from its Debian base) then regular mint is great.
if forced...
- Debian stable (or sid if you loathe/love yourself)
- lmde
- mint
- something other than ubuntu
- ...
- ubuntu
not hating on ubuntu, its just been moving away from where I am at.
If you're skeptical that this feat is possible with a raw 4004, you're right: The 4004 itself is far too limited to run Linux directly. Instead, Grinberg created a solution that is equally impressive: an emulator that runs on the 4004 and emulates a MIPS R3000 processor—the architecture used in the DECstation 2100 workstation that Linux was originally ported to. This emulator, along with minimal hardware emulation, allows a stripped-down Debian Linux to boot to a command prompt.
that is 2^8 levels of insane! and of course its Debian.
edit: 4bit data 12bit addressing make it an 8bit processor ; -)
I will slowly corrode on this hill.
time to build a wall and have florida pay for it.
quassel and quasseldroid. its client-server, always on irc connectivity but does require a little setup.
you can access irc servers (if acceptable) and the quassel daemon via Tor. might just change the way you think about irc.
edit: word
just when you are sure this article is going to fluff out on you, it doesn't.
But how does AI tell when someone is most likely lying? They’re smiling like an American.
I was oddly surprised at how I connected with this article. a useful read in a defining epoch.
you (yes, you in particular) are the reason why STP was invented.
I would normally suggest that this is more "networking porn", but its just way too fetishistic for regular consumption. you animal!
branding is important, yo!
You have a double standard.
well, don't we all? but I think my argument is somewhat well founded. I have a reply in-composition, but just got project smacked. will reply as soon as I am able. didnt want you to think I had abandoned a conversation.
That's security through obscurity. It's not that Linux has better security, only that its already tiny desktop market share around 2003 was even smaller because of different variations.
no, its absolutely not. its choosing software components based on known security vulns or limiting exposure to a suite of suspected or established attack vectors. its absolutely not security through obscurity. these are fundamental choices made every day by engineers and sysadmins everywhere as part of the normal design, implementation and maintenance process. there is nothing "obscure" about selecting for certain attributes and against others. this is how its done.
perhaps you disagree with this.
That's again blaming the Microsoft user for not understanding computers but not blaming the Linux user for running as root.
? its not the users job to understand OS security. to expect otherwise is unrealistic. also, virtually no "average" linux user, then or now, ran/runs as root. the "root X" issue related to related to requiring XWindows to run with and maintain root privs., not the user interacting with X running as root. it was much more common in the XP era to find XP users running as administrator than a "Linux user ~~for~~ running as root" because of deep, baked-in design choices made by microsoft for windows XP that were, at a fundamental level, incompatable with a secure system - microsofts poor response to their own tech debt broke everything "NT" about XP... which is exactly the point I am trying to make. I am not sure your statement has any actual relation to what I said.
view more: next ›
damn, lemmy hot takes are lava.