JCattheATM

consciousness may be just another emotion: happiness, sadness, egoness.

It's clearly much more than that.

You wrote your own terminal emulator?

I wonder how this would make Hyprland compare to Pinnacle or Awesome? So far I haven't found anything better than Awesome for crafting a bespoke desktop experience.

You can't opt out of the protections and then complain that there are no protections

Sometimes you don't have a choice in running software that doesn't use the 'protections' an obscure OS offers. If someone wants to run Oracle, pledge and unveil is irrelivant, as where other security solutions can still protect Oracle without requiring opt-in, and to a far greater extent.

https://man.openbsd.org/chflags.1 lists such a flag

It's too blunt, it's an all or nothing approach. You have no way to say process A can append only, but privileged process b should have no write access at all.

That's trivial by setting group/world permissions on any unix-like.

Only in the bluntest of terms. There is no way to allow, say, a webserverto have read access to a file while not allowing a cat processes, spawned as a subprocess of that webserver process, to not have access.

So, https://why-openbsd.rocks/fact/noexec/ ?

No, not even close. I mean allowing user a to run /bin/ls to execute while not having access to execute /bin/rm, and at the same time allowing user b to execute both, and user c to run /bin/rm but not /bin/ls

Etc etc etc.

No, not really, since you didn't make any point that were not based on misunderstandings.

It is true. The do surface level protections, but have nothing to really lock down a system. What do they provide that can restrict an attacker who managed to compromise a remote service that wasn't using pledge or unveil? On other OS's, you can set things like append only, limit files being readable by particular processes, whitelist paths or executables from where the system may execute, etc etc etc.

I'm damn sure I've never seen a piece of openbsd marketing in my life

Kind of weird for you to defend a product if you've never even been to their website.

aggressively bring in new security features like pf, OpenSSH, W^X enforcement, pledge(), arc4random(), ASLR, so many other things.

I'd say OpenSSH is a great tool, arc4random was great and pledge is interesting although doesn't do much for code that wasn't compiled with it (and they are still really lacking in ways to lock down apps for a 'security focused' OS), the rest is just their implementation of stuff that already existed not something they innovated.

Most of their reputation comes from a time when linux distros and windows had every service enabled and exposed by default, it just developed it's own momentum the way many myths do.

Well, that's where OpenBSD falls short, it lacks facilities to really enforce defense in depth - even NetBSD has some better features in this regard.

Pretty sure you're familiar with their claims.

No one is claiming that, they are at least setting a foundation for that to be possible though.

It's not too late to start now, similar to how Linux did a few years back.

OpenBSD's security stance being the stuff of legend,

More so their marketing.

I know a lot of Russians, but all of them left and are critical. Can't say I know any Russians in Rusia, but papers such as Meduza report on and give interviews with them frequently.

Heh.. Russia has "elections" too.

The 'heh' indicates a misplaced smugness.Our elections actually result in a change in leadership. There is a lot of yammering, but no evidence the US is about to become an actual dictatorship.

So easy to point and jeer and say "they're bad, but over here the circumstances are different!"...

Because they are drastically different. You're just trying to downplay that because it breaks your entire argument.

I can say that about Americans.

Eh, you'd be wrong. It's a different issue in the US, half the population believe and vote for nonsense, the other half are strongly against it.

What proof do you have, or do you "just know it"?

Friends with Russians, and try to read useful sources like Meduza. It's absolutely very much the case that most of that population are brainwashed and believe the state propaganda.

Meanwhile in Russia, protesting will get you arrested and probably be sent to the frontline (as a man) or prison (as a woman).

Yes, so an armed uprising is necessary if voting is not an option. But if there is no will, there will be no effort.

Meanwhile in America, there's a political party using the Nazi playbook to subvert democracy and succeeding.

America will still have elections, and we won't have to deal with our Putin-wannabe again after their term is up.

Except most Russians support their government and believe its lies...

Adding back a reply someone deleted because I think it adds to the conversation:

    He never made the argument that goto was considered harmful (the title was not his), the letter itself is a solid argument for why the unbounded goto (as opposed to the, typically, function or lexical scope restricted goto) creates programs that are hard to comprehend. He also, if you read the letter, does not argue for abolishing goto, it's part of the larger case of going toward structured programming.

    If you learned programming after about 1990 (probably some time in the 1980s was the real inflection point, but by 1990) you would have been learning structured programming and the argument was moot, because it had won. Every major language used after that time (outside of assembly languages which are inherently unstructured as a language) was already using structured programming so the argument seems superfluous or you end up having people compare the goto he describes to the modern restricted goto, which is not something he would have (strongly) argued against (though certainly against its overuse in some cases).

I'm in my 40s, wasn't coding in the 70s. Horrible use of code is a different thing from removing something entirely, though. Just that almost every language removed goto as a response is kind of amazing to me.

I honestly never got why in college his opinions were just taken as mandates. I never bough into the "goto considered harmful" argument, for example.

It's just silliness. Judge the code on the merit of the code, not deciding to reject it if you learn it was constructed with the aid of AI.

Maybe it's also brain damage of using too much Windows (with wsl). But there I have a different problem: It's easy to install and configure stuff, but it's everything else than minimal.

You could make your own tiny Windows 'distro' building on Tiny 11.

my computer gave it a red underline so I decided to do that.

Why? You were quoting text so it would never be confused for yours anyway.

Which programs can be configured in this way? Something custom you wrote?

That's what I have in my setup, six titlebar buttons: send to other screen, sticky among workspaces and always on top in addition to the base 3. Can't imagine ever using something that gives me less control again.

Agreed. It beats Arch and Void hands down IMO when I was looking for a no fuss simple and minimalist yet up to date and secure system after Slackware lost its way.

But then you run into the problem of apps assuming the tray icon exists or is visible, but isn't, leading to problems such as the program just disappearing when you close it's window with no way to reopen it (some do reopen when you try re-executing it, others do nothing or just spawn a whole new instance...) or even having no access to some function that is exclusive to the tray icon menu.

Can you name some that act like this? In 30 years I don't think I've ever seen that behavior...

This is bad news, and exactly the type of viral problem criticics of systemd warned about. Systemd advocates always downplay the issue, but here we are.

I love using Alpine, and for the few packages that don't have a musl version available (e.g. Steam), flatpak has been a great way to run them.

Hopefully someone will maintain a fork.

Apple's ASLR was incomplete and basically trash for a long time, it didn't get proper ASLR until much later.

Sure, I think I gave it that context by using the term historical.

Microsoft's Secure Desktop feature is actually incredibly well designed, and provides strong protect against fraudulent prompts or prompt interception attacks.