circuitfarmer

I meant more like, that’s the best accolade you may get as someone working for McDonald’s. But yes, McDonald’s absolutely has a reason to support the status quo in terms of corporate rule.

Employee of the Month

100% agree. Leave the people who would work the best at home at home. You want to play the corporate game? Come to the office.

You will arguably get better results in terms of your product.

Yes. One more reason why they are against a major benefit of Linux.

I’ve never understood why it isn’t the other way around.

All the higher up corpos can be together in the office. After all, they seem to enjoy playing around in suits.

For me, Snaps are the thing. Ubuntu has chosen to use Snaps even for things readily available on other distros / in many repos without the need for Snap.

Linux is about choice, and making that kind of decision eliminates some choice. And given that Ubuntu is commonly recommended for new users – partly because it is often one of the few distros with official support for stuff – it’s extra annoying.

Edit: in practice, there are many Ubuntu-like distros that are probably just as good for new users and don’t need the Snaps (e.g. Mint). But new users won’t know this. If Ubuntu were not the behemoth it is in terms of name recognition, many people would care less.

You’d be surprised how many Windows-only games run better on Linux+Proton than on Windows itself. There is far less system overhead on Linux.

Coupled with the standards too: Linux tends to be more secure, it’s free, you have more choices, etc etc. I switched both of my gaming rigs to Linux a few years ago and never looked back.

If you’re a corpo, not integrating generative AI somewhere is seen as a misstep. Shareholders want to know that their money is being used on the cutting edge.

Of course, both groups are clueless as to where generative AI may actually be useful. But ultimately it doesn’t matter.

And given the speed at which China generally is able to carry things out, I don’t think it will take long at all until we see true parity between Chinese chips and their US-based counterparts.

This also has big implications in the desktop space. A Ryzen 7 9700x has a 65 watt TDP. A modern 8-core desktop CPU so power efficient that air cooling is perfectly fine.

+1 for Pop, have run it for years without issue

I’m not suggesting that Signal is any better. I’m supporting absolute distrust until such information is available.

It would require thousands if not tens of thousands of Google semployees coordinating in utter secrecy

This is usually used for things like the Moon Landing, where so many folks worked for NASA to make it entirely impossible that the landing was faked.

But it doesn’t really apply here. We know for example that NSA backdoors exist in Windows. Were those a concerted effort by MS employees? Does everyone working on the project have access to every part of the code?

It just isn’t how development works at this scale.

Exactly. We know corporations regularly use marketing and doublespeak to avoid the fact that they operate for their interests and their interests alone. Again, the interests of corporations are not altruistic, regardless of the imahe they may want to support.

Why should we trust them to “innovate” without independent audit?

You are missing my point.

I don’t deny the definition of E2EE. What I question is whether or not RCS does in fact meet the standard.

You provided a link from Google itself as verification. That is… not useful.

Has there been an independent audit on RCS? Why or why not?

This. Distrust in corporations is healthy regardless of what they claim.

You are suggesting that “end-to-end” is some kind of legally codified phrase. It just isn’t. If Google were to steal data from a system claiming to be end-to-end encrypted, no one would be surprised.

I think your point is: if that were the case, the messages wouldn’t have been end-to-end encrypted, by definition. Which is fine. I’m saying we shouldn’t trust a giant corporation making money off of selling personal data that it actually is end-to-end encrypted.

By the same token, don’t trust Microsoft when they say Windows is secure.

You may be right for that particular instance, but I’d still argue caution is safer.

It’s probably also good practice to assume that not all encrypted apps are created equal, too. Google’s RCS messaging, for example, says “end-to-end encrypted”, which sounds like it would be a direct and equal competitor to something like Signal. But Google regularly makes money off of your personal data. It does not behoove a company like Google to protect your data.

Start assuming every corporation is evil. At worst you lose some time getting educated on options.

Yet more bullshit probably aimed at RTO. Corporate media will keep pushing the same narrative.