• 0 Posts
  • 214 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 15th, 2023

help-circle



  • In my case, part of it is that sudo is an extra installation for me on Gentoo, while su is part of the base system on any Linux. Given that all nontrivial software has bugs, every unneeded package you install adds very slightly to your security risk.

    In terms of security, sudo is better in the environment for which it is intended: a system with multiple human users that has a dedicated sysadmin who curates /etc/sudoers and makes sure that no user has more permissions than they absolutely need. However, only a small fraction of all machines running Linux meet those criteria. On the typical home system that’s using some distro’s default sudo-with-user-passwords setup, you can get root authority with only one password, whereas with su you need the passwords for both a wheel account and the root account. That isn’t much added security, but every little bit helps. On the other hand, sudo can be set to require you to enter your password again after a period of time, while su will allow a root session to hang on unto infinity, which may matter if untrusted Linux-savvy people have physical access to your machine (I don’t have that issue).

    In other words, the benefits are real but minor and situational.

    (None of this holds if you’ve done something really stupid in your configuration, like always starting an SSH server that allows both password login and direct root login when the system comes up. Always follow current best practice—in this case, certificate login only, and no direct root login—when setting up something that can be accessed over the network.)

    (Some people claim that sudo has stopped them from unintentionally running a command as root. I just assume any console I’m using has root privileges and I shouldn’t run dodgy commands in it to begin with.)


  • All non-trivial software has bugs, and it’s unsurprising that in a sudo implementation in any language, many of those bugs are security-related. This is still quite young software. Ubuntu was premature in making it their default, I think, but that just means it’s immature, not that it’s completely broken.

    Then again, I use su exclusively and don’t even have sudo installed, so I’ve got no dog in this fight.

    (As for Rust itself, I am neither for nor against. It’s a programming language. It has some issues that mostly seem to be related to how building and distribution is carried out in practice, rather than the core language design. I have never met a programming language without warts, and I’ve used several. If you’re experienced with the language—whatever it is—you learn how to handle them.)







  • Not unless they’re complete boneheads (which, admittedly, is not impossible). If they do that, they effectively lose embed-video-in-external-sites functionality, and that might just be enough for unpaid content creators to dump the platform en masse and cause their effective monopoly to crumble. The content creators who are actually making decent money may never leave entirely, but if another viable platform comes into existence, I bet most of them would mirror to it.


  • No extension—even Netscape 1.0 had most of this stuff built in. I use Pale Moon as a primary browser, but the settings required still exist in modern Firefox, under General > Language and Appearance > Contrast Control and General > Language and Appearance > Fonts > Advanced. Note that although the font labels may say “Serif” etc., Pale Moon at least doesn’t care what you put there—you can set “Serif” to a sans font if you like, or vice-versa.

    Of the Chrome-based browsers I have lying around for work and emergency purposes, Vivaldi has the font settings under Webpage, but doesn’t have full webpage colour settings (although you can force a dark theme, which might be enough). Chromium has the font settings under Appearance > Customize Fonts, but lacks anything that looks like useful colour settings.

    If you’re looking for browser extensions that will restore the colour-forcing functionality for Chrome-based browsers, “Accessibility” is one category to look under.






  • The question for me isn’t whether or not there’s a difference that I might be able to see if I were paying attention to the picture quality, it’s whether the video quality is sufficiently bad to distract me from the content. And only hypercompressed macroblocked-to-hell-and-back ancient MPEG1 files or multiply-recopied VHS tapes from the Dark Ages are ever that bad for me. In general, I’m perfectly happy with 480p. Of course, I might just have a higher-than-average immunity to bad video. (Similarly, I can spot tearing if I’m looking for it, but I do have to be looking for it.)




  • The problem here isn’t that Framework failed to keep track of the ideology espoused by every major developer on the projects they contributed to or endorsed, which, to be honest, isn’t something I’d expect of them. The problem (as usual for a corporation) is how they handled complaints. Trying to sweep stuff under the rug in the Internet age just results in someone setting the rug on fire. If instead, Framework’s response had been “We’re sorry, we didn’t know, we won’t give money or free advertising to any projects this guy is involved with from now on,” the whole mess would have died down by now except for a few people grumbling about how they should do more research before sending money out.