Chromium sandboxing means nothing when it leaks so much data.
The attacker can't gain access to the host with javascript.
A browser that support javascript but doesn't have sandboxing might not leak these data but when their are bug in their js implementation, the attacker can gain more access to the host.
Also, security means nothing if privacy and anonymity are worse.
Security here is protection from exploits, bugs,...
the phone world is fucked. Use a landline phone :)
Chromium is inadequate and bad.
For a anonymous browser, but not for a secure browser. The paper is purely about privacy and anonymity. No security (sandboxing, mitigations) here.
Then why does the Tor Project choose Firefox over Chromium as its browser base? Chromium is incredibly insecure and full of holes. Post this wishy washy bullshit on reddit, not on Lemmy.
Because Tor browser's goal is maximum anonymity and onion service. Firefox might be lag behind in security, but its code and features met the privacy requirements. Tor browser try to achieve some security by using noscript and block some web feature.
BSD is so dead
No evidence.
Linux might won on quantity, but its quality is not comparable to BSDs.
A typical example is OpenBSD, to quote Michael W. Lucas:
Many open source operating system put a lot of effort into growing their user base, evangelizing, and bringing new people into the Unix fold. OpenBSD does not.
The communities surrounding other operating systems actively encourage new users and try to make newbies feel welcome. OpenBSD specifically and deliberately does not.
The developers know exactly who their target market is: themselves. If you can use their work, that's great. If not, go away until you can.
They will not hold your hand. They will not develop new features to please users. OpenBSD exist to meet the needs of the developers, and while others are welcome to ride along, the needs of the passengers do not steer the project.
And it still live well?!@
You should have backups. Not hedge against 1 in 10 million error conditions.
if a partition isn't actively written to, it's less likely to suffer damage
The second one is a huge bother in desktops. I never not regretted trying it.
ok
The third one is a complete non-problem.
This is only a problem with OpenBSD. They never encourage using a huge single root partition, and never test it.
It have an asterisk, not a -
Users want compatibility and ease of use.
The distribution can choose not to include proprietary drivers. And not to "fix" it.
"Ignorance is strength", isn't the strength of "linux communities" is enough to take nvidia down?
But the only real enemy of that set is NVidia.
The only?
(Windows user that switch to linux and then say: we only need partition for / and /home are also enemies. Windows user that have switch to linux and use root for every task are enemies.)
Nonsense.