|
|
|
|
|
|
by akimbostrawman
44 days ago
|
|
|
>What about Fedora? You still have sudo don't you? So still less secure but also more freedom than GOS. >We are just lucky that desktop linux is not a popular target. Its not only that. The fact that software is expected to be mostly installed and updated from trusted, vetted and signed repositories instead of google or root not being used willy nilly by all applications.
Both of these basic usage differences are the reason why for all its security features windows will still be much less secure for the average user than even the most basic linux distro. 90% of security is low hanging fruit. >I don't think a dead man’s switch on a lawn mower has reasonably limited anyone’s freedom I'm very sure there have been not a small number of cases where such switches did limit freedom, even if you think they do more good than bad they are still there to limit something. The switch could prevent usage when faulty or otherwise prevent unofficial uses or just repairability. |
|
|
Well, don't be overly sure about how trustworthy these repositories are. Maintainers can't read all the 100s of millions of lines of code, and as mentioned, faulty programs can be just as bad when combined with non-trustworthy data.
Also, people often run random shell scripts (curl | sh), or npm install stuff -- this is arbitrary code execution with the users's full rights.
> 90% of security is low hanging fruit.
I agree here, but unfortunately still nothing is being done, with the exception of flatpak perhaps? And as for windows, among desktop OSs osx is in the best place in terms of security and even that is pretty behind compared to mobile OSs.