[-] john89@lemmy.ca -4 points 1 day ago

I don't think the security issues with windows stem from not having the user enter their password a bunch of times.

[-] john89@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

You're right.

Scientific consensus is never wrong and it will never be wrong again.

My bad.

[-] john89@lemmy.ca -3 points 2 days ago

Yeah, but you gotta admit it's possible windows does some things better.

I also think a lot of linux users get tunnel-visioned and believe that something is incorrect simply because it's how another OS does it.

[-] john89@lemmy.ca -3 points 2 days ago

Thank you for the informative response. I was unaware Windows machines employed similar behavior in corporate environments.

Do you think, then, that it would be acceptable for Linux to remove these restrictions in home environments?

[-] john89@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 days ago
[-] john89@lemmy.ca -2 points 2 days ago

because it’s a system of evidence and confirmation.

It's a system that has been routinely wrong before.

Do you think it's never going to be wrong again? That's having faith.

-27
submitted 2 days ago by john89@lemmy.ca to c/linux@lemmy.ml

Isn't it enough to just enter your password once to login, then receive a warning whenever you're about to do something potentially dangerous?

If it's such a big security risk, how come the most popular and widely used operating systems in the world and their users seem to be unaffected by it?

I guarantee, most new users coming to Linux from Windows/macOS are going to laugh and look at you funny if you try to justify entering your password again and again and again.

[-] john89@lemmy.ca -1 points 3 days ago
[-] john89@lemmy.ca -1 points 3 days ago
[-] john89@lemmy.ca -1 points 4 days ago

If you understand the science yourself, then you're correct.

The problem is that most people don't understand the science and just have faith in other people who might.

[-] john89@lemmy.ca -1 points 4 days ago

Didn't know there were so many water experts on lemmy.

[-] john89@lemmy.ca -3 points 4 days ago

Who are you writing this for?

Right back at ya.

[-] john89@lemmy.ca -2 points 4 days ago

It's not nearly as bad as it is now.

And it was always a scam, even back then.

1
submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by john89@lemmy.ca to c/twitch@lemmy.ml

It seems like they're leaving a lot of money on the table. I don't think a significant number of people would jump ship if Twitch updated their policy to give 99% of donations directly to streamers while taking a 1% cut for themselves.

There might be some initial grumbling, but it would probably fizzle out in a week when people move on to other things.

500
submitted 1 month ago by john89@lemmy.ca to c/til@lemmy.world

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinidad_Petroleum_Holdings#Paria_Fuel_Trading_Company_diving_tragedy

Of course, there is no direct admittance of "we knew it would be cheaper to let them die."

Instead, they say "we had no legal obligation to rescue them." That's the answer for the people who were born yesterday.

Big oil truly is a disgusting thing.

view more: next ›

john89

joined 1 month ago