A husband. A father. A senior software engineer. A video gamer. A board gamer.

  • 0 Posts
  • 19 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 15th, 2023

help-circle






  • I didn’t say it was more secure, I said it’s about the same.

    The difference is a person being forced to go to a website to download software means more steps and more time to consider the safety of what they’re doing. It’s part psychological.

    Not all such packages are retrieved from GitHub, I remember downloading numerous .deb files direct over the past 25 years (even as recent as downloading Discord manually some years back).

    The main point I’m making is that you should legally protect yourself, it’s a low and reasonable effort.


  • Up front: I am not a doctor.

    Seriously, seek a second opinion, and if you are a woman, and it sounds like the original doctor is a man, find a woman doctor. I know this sounds sexist, and I’m honestly not trying to be, but it has been shown many times how male doctors tend to overlook or not listen to female patients. You must advocate for yourself.

    Anecdotally, my spouse has had this happen numerous times. And it is extremely frustrating every time because it’s effectively a waste of time and money. And, something could be seriously wrong (not saying anything actually is), so you should make very certain at minimum that certain testing is done such as various tests from blood work and/or urine testing.


  • It’s a cool concept, but automation breeds laziness (by design, to an extent) and lazy end users tend to shoot themselves in the foot. So it isn’t great for security, but it also isn’t that much worse for security :)

    Since some people with money tend to be litigious, and, of course, I am not a lawyer, I would advise a warning message (or part of the license if you don’t want to muck up your CLI), if you don’t have one, to force the user to accept and acknowledge that the software they are installing using this tool is not verified to be safe.






  • ulkesh@beehaw.orgtoLinux@lemmy.mlIs Linux As Good As We Think It Is?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Things don’t just work on any operating system.

    With Windows, you have to hope there’s a solution that you can implement that doesn’t require rooting around in the insanely-outmoded registry and doesn’t require uninstalling some specific KB12345678 update.

    With MacOS, you will do as Apple says, and you will like it. Otherwise, enjoy the $3000 doorstop. Granted, there is plenty you can tweak, but when there is a problem, and you find some Apple Communities post with a copy/paste official reply that has steps to take, none of which ever actually solve the problem, you will be treated with a cheeseburger on your way to the insane asylum. Full disclosure: a MacBook Air is my daily work driver.

    With Linux, you are in charge — for better and for worse. This means that when there is a problem, while there is likely a solution, it will depend on many, many factors such as hardware configuration, kernel version, desktop environment, graphics card, display manager, etc. But, you can fix it with research and perseverance with no company getting in the way.

    The main difference with Linux, is that you are given the freedom to deal with problems as you see fit.

    So, yes, to me, Linux is as good as I think it is — not because it’s better or more stable (though subjectively I would say it is), but because it respects us by keeping the ownership and power where it belongs.






  • It’s not at all unfair when instead of thanking people for their answers, they’re rewording what they have said to ask in a different way just to try to act like their hypothesis is right.

    Playing Devil’s Advocate is one thing, taking the time to try to effectively say that people should think Lincoln was authoritarian because he removed a legal “right” is another.

    The STAMP act was legal, and our ancestors rebellled and got a country out of it (among other things). Law does not make right. And that’s what the OP doesn’t understand. He’s using semantics to try to make up something that simply isn’t true.

    Edit: And technically Lincoln didn’t change the law, the 13th Amendment did. Lincoln simply created a proclamation that slaves in most areas (note that it wasn’t all slaves everywhere in the states, deals were struck to omit some areas from the proclamation) are to be considered free because it was a way to help win the Civil War. It was both morally right, and a strategic move. If that is to be considered authoritarian, then every single executive order that presidents make should also be considered authoritarian. But again, it’s simply not true in our system of government (however plagued by dysfunction it is these days).