2024 is the Year of Linux on the Desktop, at least for my boyfriend. He’s running Windows 7 right now, so I’ll be switching him to Ubuntu in a few days. Ubuntu was chosen because Proton is officially supported in Ubuntu.
2024 is the Year of Linux on the Desktop, at least for my boyfriend. He’s running Windows 7 right now, so I’ll be switching him to Ubuntu in a few days. Ubuntu was chosen because Proton is officially supported in Ubuntu.
People don’t care about security until they get hit. Source: working in IT for 10 years.
And then suddenly they care a lot and do all the wrong things for wrong reasons because they know shit
“I don’t worry about missing security patches. I just have 5 anti-virus tools running simultaneously, they keep me safe.”
Or those people who actively avoid patches in general, because “they make my device slow”
I mean, they do make your device slow. That why tools like InSpectre exists. For some old cpu’s like my notebooks one it can be up to 20% performance impact, so if you not planning to use it with internet (or at least as main access point via browser) ever again, why not get yourself free performance?
And all of the anti-virus tools are 50 updates behind so they’re essentially non-functional bloatware even moreso
Effective immediately employees must update passwords every week, and cannot match any past password.
Managers will receive hardware security dongles to make their logins easier. Employees may feel free to register their personal hardware security dongles on site but off the clock.
I see it more in: people won’t switch for security reasons if it means giving up usability
I would support a law that requires software companies to open source software that they discontinue support on.
That way, companies that disappear don’t have their customers at risk.
And software companies will support software for longer.
I think the problem with this is that the corpos will just keep pushing out updates that barely change anything and call the device “supported”
There is sure to be some of that, but they will at least get the blame for when it goes poorly.
They are obligated by many of their corporate and government clients to patch any security flaws and fix bugs.
I would prefer that they don’t touch what is working and just focus on fixing bugs and security issues.
This moving feature set and release of half finished software approach is why people have hated windows so much since the windows 8 days.
This would also help a lot on a sustainability level as well
In this case they could have switched to Windows 10 years ago and even 11 is perfectly fine, especially if you install it in English UK so a lot of the cleanup work is done for you.
This only is true if you have a pc that supports it. In my case windows 10 was the end station for my workstation
And it’s still getting updates until 2025 (more if you want to pay) and Windows 11 can be installed on hardware without TPM 2.0 (witch will be more than 10 years old when Windows 10 stops getting updates)…
At some point people have to accept that the world is moving forward and technology is continuously improving… At what point do you consider that your machine is old enough that it’s acceptable to retire it? Should I be able to install Windows 11 on my Pentium 150mhz?
Kek. I mainly use it for a little gaming. It has an i7 2600 and an rx6700xt. Works stellar for my usage, so if I can keep using it for the next 10 years I will.
We should stop retiring hardware that still meets demands
Even IT people don’t give a shit about security until it’s way too late. Source: getting out of a job where the median age of a server is around 3-4 years old with no updates and runtimes hard installed outside repositories.
I think this is just kind of a side effect of capitalism.
If it’s costing them in the short term, and the results aren’t evident or won’t be seen until the long term, they almost always won’t do it.
No, it’s education.
Definitely. You see it across all aspects of life: basic misunderstanding of risk everywhere.
deleted by creator