But they don’t have to make any OS “office-wide”. All they have to do is

1. move from a centralized micro-management of every workstation to a scenario where users can be provided a prepared workstation, but may configure one themselves
2. transition to a security policy that assumes every single workstation is insecure, and regulate the network traffic to allow only those protocols that are required for the business, protecting each machine from the next (this would prevent so many major security incidents where a single machine gets compromised and then the whole network is affected)
3. provide central infrastructure as open protocols - IMAP (or POP3/SMTP), HTTPS, FTPS + file & printer sharing as desired
4. enforce open formats within the enterprise

If necessary (assuming you have really irresponsible users), before authorizing users to set up their own machine, they can do a qualification check - or have the user’s line manager approve the “individual setup”.

This would enable power users productivity and even if you don’t change anything for the vast amount of users, it would pay off rapidly. If you can move regular workstations away from the bloatware that is Windows, you would boost the overall productivity immensely.

Specifically, what I am arguing against is:

• locking users into an eco-system for any kind of service (e.g. MS Exchange servers, MS Active Directory)
• outsourcing your IT competences to Microsoft (because let’s be real, that’s the actual reason IT departments go for Microsoft: corporate IT is outsourced as a service, this means lowest bidder, and the lowest bidder will happily take Microsoft’s offer to take care of any “real” issues and only provide a really, really dumb and helpless first level support)
• having tons of services listening on every workstation that no one ever needs (just open your windows control panel (while it’s still around) and check out all the running services, of which you could disable > 50% if Windows would let you, without impacting the operational state of your machine) and each one presenting a vulnerable interface to the network

You have zero reading comprehension. Good job wasting your time on a pointless rant.

Do I sense some inner tensions due to frustration with using Microsoft’s sorry excuse for an OS?

Gold medal of tautology. At this point, people still using windows voluntarily don’t deserve any better. And IT departments having a choice but forcing windows on users deserve to be burned at the stake.

which is basically what we do using ublock origin - and then they inject ads directly into the video stream, and a custom UI wouldn’t help.

While I don’t disagree with Stallman, how would that solve this problem? This is about a major video hosting platform having market shares and injecting ads into their streams / UI. I do not see - even if every line of youtube’s software sources were public - how that would solve the issue that the hosting platform can insert ads anywhere - honestly, as much as I hate ads, I can’t even blame youtube for doing something morally questionable - they are providing a service, they are not a public institution obligated to making information accessible.

Capitalism. No.

I meant that thanks to abstract art we’re willing to forgive “image glitches” in art by deep learning models.

Generative AI is much better at art than coding.

Mostly because humans invented this convenient thing called abstract art - and since then tolerates pretty much everything that looks “strange” as art. Must have been a deep learning advocate with a time machine who came up with abstract art.

Clearest difference I can see is:

• people who act more in the interest of society and less in the interest of those in power get arrested
• people who help those in power tighten the leash on society (fuckerberg, muskrat, etc) get courted and don’t ever face consequences

In other words: A high profile person in tech being threatened with arrest / being arrested by western countries is a pretty good sign that they were not cooperating with our totalitarian overlords & providing us with ways to preserve our privacy.

A censor happy mod thinks they are the greatest… How pathetic :D

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

For the purpose of protecting important data, the distinction really doesn’t matter. And the good old xkcd comic has a point - for many people, all relevant data is in the user’s accessible storage area anyways. Hence me running almost all internet applications and steam in a jail.

Okay, fair point, let me rephrase: if someone knows what kernel (admin) level execution means, and installs a game that requires this on a computer where they keep important data, they are a dumbass mtherfcker :) Generally speaking though: most people shouldn’t be allowed to use technology - humans are unbelievably stupid for the most part.

we just need one pvp game with kernel level anti cheat

Leaving aside that security patches should be done, if you install that kind of game on a system where you have any data worth protecting, you’re a dumb ass mtherfcker. Sorry, but seriously, that’s just how it is.

what a pathetic weird dumbass

The mistake is public. This is where people see it and should also see the correction. The fact that you get your knickers in a twist over a simple word correction, is worrysome. It’s not like I said “lol u so dumb OP”.

While security has nothing to do with my disgust for docker and people advocating its use, docker adds a layer of complexity, which means it is not necessarily more secure.

What is extremely bad about docker:

1. it enables extremely shitty configuration control on the side of a developer. There are way too many developers who have a chaotic approach to configurations, and instead of being forced to write a proper installation and configuration guide from scratch, and thereby making themselves(!) aware of active configuration changes they made to make their system work, they just roll out the docker container they develop in, without remembering most of the configurations they made. Which, naturally, means that they are unable to assist in troubleshooting problems or reproduce issues that users might have.

In general, if you can’t write a good user manual, or at least clearly identify needed dependencies and configurations, you should not be developing software for other people.

2. it combines the disadvantages of a VM (shitty performance) and running directly on the host OS (sandboxing is not nearly as good as on a VM)

3. it creates insane bloat, by completely bypassing the concept of shared libraries and making people download copies of software they already have on their system

4. it adds a lot of security risks because the user would have to not only review the source code they are compiling and installing, but also would have to scan all the dependencies and what-not, and would basically have to trust the developer and/or anyone distributing an image that they did not add any malware.

Hard disagree. Common mistakes ruin grammar because other people will adopt these. And when written language becomes ambiguous due to people not using proper grammar, that’s a very important foundation of “words have no meaning” fuzziness employed by populists, and in effect dumbs down people.