|
|
Android has always allowed non-Play Store applications to be loaded. It's just not as easy to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like all those eyes need glasses or a big ![Java | [Coffee]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/coffee.gif)
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
The claim that Linux (and all FOSS software) is more secure because anyone can look at the code and check for security issues begs the questions: does anyone ever actually check it for security issues, and is anyone with the skills and knowledge to recognize such issues checking it?
There are no solutions, only trade-offs. - Thomas Sowell
A day can really slip by when you're deliberately avoiding what you're supposed to do.
- Calvin (Bill Watterson, Calvin & Hobbes)
|
|
|
|
|
TNCaver wrote: does anyone ever actually check it for security issues, and is anyone with the skills and knowledge to recognize such issues checking it?
That exactly is the point... in my opnion, yes it is an advantage, but that only from time to time is used. I think not many people take the time to deep dive in every change, but luckily, there is people that do it when something rings a bell
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
For the sake of argument let's say "No. Nobody with the skills or knowledge to recognize security issues is looking at Linux or FOSS software.
What exactly does that say about Windows (and Windows apps) which are consistently found to be less secure?
|
|
|
|
|
I'd say that your whataboutism compares apples to oranges as far as the two OS's, and not true for the apps. The monetary motivation for hacking Linux is statistically irrelevant compared to that of Windows.
There are no solutions, only trade-offs. - Thomas Sowell
A day can really slip by when you're deliberately avoiding what you're supposed to do.
- Calvin (Bill Watterson, Calvin & Hobbes)
|
|
|
|
|
TNCaver wrote: I'd say that your whataboutism compares apples to oranges as far as the two OS's, and not true for the apps.
Not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting that Windows apps are more or less secure than the OS???
TNCaver wrote: The monetary motivation for hacking Linux is statistically irrelevant compared to that of Windows.
Ummm... no. You must only be thinking about desktop PCs (which was relevant in the 80s and 90s) but not so today. When you consider servers, cloud systems, mobile devices, embedded devices, super computers, etc... the percentages and "monetary motivations" are completely flipped.
|
|
|
|
|
fgs1963 wrote: Are you suggesting that Windows apps are more or less secure than the OS
No, I'm suggesting that apart from where an app depends on the OS for security there is little difference between Windows apps and FOSS apps and how secure they are.
fgs1963 wrote: ...servers, cloud systems, mobile devices, embedded devices, super computers, etc... the percentages and "monetary motivations" are completely flipped
And the instances of successful hacking attempts increased to match. The security of both OS's and their apps do not depend 100% on the code behind them; both are subject to phishing and other types of hacks. And the perceived security of Linux against malware is probably why the malware reported in the article remained hidden for so long.
There are no solutions, only trade-offs. - Thomas Sowell
A day can really slip by when you're deliberately avoiding what you're supposed to do.
- Calvin (Bill Watterson, Calvin & Hobbes)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes but 50% of them are doing it to build more back doors in. 
|
|
|
|
|
Yup.
There are no solutions, only trade-offs. - Thomas Sowell
A day can really slip by when you're deliberately avoiding what you're supposed to do.
- Calvin (Bill Watterson, Calvin & Hobbes)
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't know that there were thousands of Linux systems.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Proposed guidelines aim to inject badly needed common sense into password hygiene. Pour one out for mandatory periodic password resets
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, good. We'll finally stop having to remember our first pet's name.
Obligatory xkcd: Password Strength
modified 27-Sep-24 13:20pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Hopefully it can run Snake.
|
|
|
|
|
Is Jenna Barron the new Kent Sharkey?
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
I’m begging you for the benefit of everyone, don’t be STUPID.
|
|
|
|
|
Jenna Barron, Thank you!
To err is human to really elephant it up you need a computer
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the smiley Kent, that's still a non answer though. Blink twice if you are under a NDA.
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
I’m begging you for the benefit of everyone, don’t be STUPID.
|
|
|
|
|
Seems like Rust is having a moment.
|
|
|
|
|
This so-called benchmark is useless without further specification.
Memory usage:
Does this include kernel memory used by the application? How about virtual memory? Is committed memory counted differently from reserved memory?
Execution time:
Is this wall time (i.e. useless in a multi-tasking environment)? Does this include time spent in the kernel? How about startup & termination times of the RTL?
Environment:
How would the results vary if run on a different O/S? different compilers?
Compilation time/memory usage:
Given that compilation is performed once, while the application is run any number of times, this is meaningless unless one is speaking of differences measured in orders of magnitude.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. I'll take a look at it.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
You can just run a few devices through a power monitor.
Watch them at idle for a baseline, and then run a system stress - unless what you're saying is the benchmark itself is incomplete?
And adding, this technique works better on realtime systems because you won't have seemingly random variances in resource usage like you will on a windows system for example.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
