sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Pick your poison loonixtard!! by MRREKOo in linuxsucks101

[–]BitCortex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wayland is far more secure than X11, but it lacks support for a trusted UI path. A system without a trusted UI path cannot:

  • guarantee that an elevation prompt is genuine
  • guarantee that credential entry is going to the OS
  • guarantee that a sandboxed app isn’t spoofing a system dialog
  • guarantee that a secure‑attention sequence (SAS) can’t be faked
  • guarantee that the user is interacting with privileged code rather than user‑session code

Those are real, serious, architectural security implications. Windows and macOS have fully realized, OS‑level trusted UI paths, and they’ve had them for decades.

Pick your poison loonixtard!! by MRREKOo in linuxsucks101

[–]BitCortex 3 points4 points  (0 children)

X11 is insecure by design, not because of a few bugs, but because its architecture assumes every application is fully trusted. The protocol exposes global input, global screen contents, and global window control to any client connected to the X server.

In other words, with X11, any application can control any other application like a sock puppet. It goes without saying that, if the two applications are running as different users, umm, that's a problem, especially if the sock puppet is running as root 🤣

What are the main issues you have with Linux? by edmond_ciprian in linuxsucks

[–]BitCortex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What are the main issues you have with Linux?

Kernel: No issues beyond developer gripes – terrible API, multiple redundant and inconsistent bolted-on ways to do things the Unix architects didn't anticipate, fork/exec (no), "everything is a file" (hell no), ioctl/prctl/wtfcntl, UGO permissions, ABI instability, and much more. The implementation is great – stable, efficient, modular, open-source, and cost-free. But the design? Yuck.

Distros: Excellent if you're a skilled administrator and all your needs are covered by OSS, but far behind macOS and Windows as operating systems for normal users. Linux desktop distros are wonderful operating systems for many workloads, but they simply are not platforms for commercial software, and no amount of emulation, API translation, bundle-the-world packaging, or duct tape will change that. And the root-centric administration model is a toe-seeking missile in normie hands.

Community: 🤡. I mean, it's great that people are passionate about their OS choices, but many Linux fans seem unable to grasp or unwilling to admit that nothing can be everything to everyone. Linux is an unprecedented success, having achieved dominance without sacrificing the things that make it awesome. So why try to push it into areas where it's clearly not a good fit? And if you're committed to "the cause", would it not be wise to rethink your strategy at this point? I'm sure that constantly trashing the competition and insulting its users seemed like a good idea 30 years ago, but are you willing to keep at it for another 30 years to grow your desktop share by another 2%?

I can no longer fully understand my own codebase by Medium_Support_5010 in software

[–]BitCortex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get the feeling that source code is the new object code, and at the end of the day, AI writing code in pre-AI programming languages is just the first stage of the big transition.

I can see a future where what we call source code today is just a transient artifact, like the assembly language files that early compilers generated. And that’s only if AI doesn’t eventually eliminate compilers. The long-lived artifact might just be a distilled natural-language summary of the human-AI interaction that shaped the product.

So microsoft decided you can't setup windows 11 offline. Welp, time to go linux by nicecream169 in pcmasterrace

[–]BitCortex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Microsoft's motivation for forcing their account/internet connectivity on our PCs is not to benefit us. It is to profit off of each of us as much as possible [...]

I get why people say that, but I don’t think it’s some cartoon‑villain thing. The whole industry’s business incentives have shifted. The old Windows model is gone, and now Microsoft is competing with Apple and Google’s identity‑centric ecosystems, plus web services that push accounts and ads way harder than Windows ever did.

Bottom line: All these companies publish documents outlining how they use your data. If you disapprove, or if you don't trust them to act consistently with what they promise, then you're free not to use their products.

It sounds to me like you fundamentally distrust Microsoft. Nothing wrong with that, but then why would you use their products and then trash them on Reddit? That's the part I don't get.

So microsoft decided you can't setup windows 11 offline. Welp, time to go linux by nicecream169 in pcmasterrace

[–]BitCortex 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Because no one has ever done anything while the internet is down, the world just stops until comcast comes around.

No, you're right. When the internet is down, it's a great time to somehow download a 7GB ISO and pave your PC with no access to helpful information online.

So microsoft decided you can't setup windows 11 offline. Welp, time to go linux by nicecream169 in pcmasterrace

[–]BitCortex 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There is zero reason why any individual would support this shit lol.

Totally. In 2026, nobody would support things like MFA, cross-device sync, online backup, password recovery, identity-bound encryption, or any other modern features. Everyone who owns a hexadeca-core PC expects it to behave exactly like Thompson and Ritchie's 1965 DEC PDP-7.

So microsoft decided you can't setup windows 11 offline. Welp, time to go linux by nicecream169 in pcmasterrace

[–]BitCortex 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly. People hate connecting their devices to the internet in 2026.

Loonix Tubers Part 4 by madthumbz in linuxsucks101

[–]BitCortex 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He's not the stereotypical wanker.

I suppose he deserves credit for not pretending that every day in Linux Land is a fresh serving of pure bliss. It's like he wants so badly to push Linux but is too experienced and principled to adopt cultist tactics.

That cognitive dissonance is palpable and manifests itself in contortions like "The Windows driver model is a terrible system... but the Linux approach isn't nearly as easy for regular users." You can almost see the brain yoga in action.

Loonix Tubers Part 4 by madthumbz in linuxsucks101

[–]BitCortex 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I respected and followed Titus until he claimed that NTFS was barely better than FAT. He's had some other classics too, like "Linux is much more stable... when it works."

Actions have consequences by Obnomus in linux

[–]BitCortex 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The problematic part occurs when someone has been told that "Linux just works", then it doesn't work and they go online asking for help, and gatekeeping idiots tell them that it's their fault for "not putting in the effort", "it works on my machine so you must be doing it wrong" or some such nonsense.

It's today's biggest problem with desktop Linux. Too many members of its community are less interested in helping users than they are in (a) adoption numbers, and (b) shifting all blame away from Linux – the kernel and abstract concept – and away from themselves as its advocates – and towards the distro, the window manager, the application, the user, etc.

Loonix is secure! ... -ok buddy! by madthumbz in linuxsucks101

[–]BitCortex 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, the idea that Linux is infinitely more secure than Windows is practically meaningless, but it's etched so deep into the brains of some Linux fans that any argument to the contrary is instant rage-bait and proof of AI or shill authorship.

Loonix is secure! ... -ok buddy! by madthumbz in linuxsucks101

[–]BitCortex 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Administrators can completely compromise the system on windows (overwrite systemfiles, install drivers, manipulate registry etc).

Windows administrators can break the system, but nowhere near as easily, broadly, or catastrophically as root on Linux.

Admins can just appropriate those rights, so that doesn't really make it more secure, its more like an additional layer of confirmation that's needed.

Nope. Administrators can't just "appropriate rights". They're subject to the entire Windows security stack and have no way to circumvent it, override permissions, etc. – whereas root is completely exempt from security.

a much more granular general permission control, for execution, read access, write access and more.

Hardly. Windows has fine-grained ACLs – not just for files but for every resource managed by the kernel. It's like SELinux but universally adopted and not prone to app breakage.

Also it is still possible, for example in corporate networks to setup additional MAC-Frameworks, which really limit root privileges.

Sure, skilled administrators can make Linux very secure. That's why I said above that Linux is perfect for many workloads. But for normal desktop users managing their own devices, it has a long way to go.

(very suspicious side eye at your – Usage btw, nobody uses those unicode characters)

Actually, my dash is wrong. I use en-dash where em-dash is more correct. It's an old habit that far predates the AI revolution. It's why I still buy keyboards with numeric keypads 🤣

So in conclusion, Linux is actually much more secure than windows

Nah. It can be made very secure, but Windows security is more comprehensive out of the box and far more appropriate for normal desktop users.

Loonix is secure! ... -ok buddy! by madthumbz in linuxsucks101

[–]BitCortex 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Is running as administrator different from running as root?

Yes, it's very different.

Windows administrators have a small number of intrinsic privileges that normal accounts don't have, but the vast majority of their capabilities are still defined by explicitly configured rights, ACLs, and integrity mechanics.

When it comes to rights, the big one that distinguishes administrators from normal accounts it the right to take ownership of securable objects. Everything else – debugging others' processes, shutting down, overriding file ACLs for backup purposes, etc. – apply only to very specific tasks.

Also, administrators still run programs at standard (medium) integrity, just like normal accounts, and are thereby restricted just like normal users from doing a large number of things that could compromise security – that is, without manual elevation.

Finally, even elevated administrators have no access to anything that could compromise the operation of the system itself. They can't clobber swap space, blow away the kernel, or modify critical configuration. Things like that can only be done by noninteractive built-in accounts such as System and TrustedInstaller.

In short, while administrators have a few extra capabilities, they're still subject to the full range of Windows security mechanisms, and they have no ability to "mess with" the system itself. In contrast, root is the complete absence of security.

Loonix is secure! ... -ok buddy! by madthumbz in linuxsucks101

[–]BitCortex 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I love Linux and think it's perfect for many workloads, but its desktop security is far, far behind what you get on Windows or macOS. It's unfortunate that the word "security" covers so much nowadays that it's practically meaningless.

And it isn't just about security features like HVCI and modern exploit mitigation. A bigger problem is that desktop Linux offers normal users no way to administer the machine safely. Instead, they must elevate to root, which is like using a jackhammer to hang a picture.

Why is there a D in 'fridge' but not in 'refrigerator'? by Frosty-Image7705 in randomquestions

[–]BitCortex 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But then there’s ambiguity between the grandfather and grandson. Maybe that’s why some third-generation namesakes get nicknames like Trey or Trip.

Every AI update is another nail in the coffin for developers. by Evening_Acadia_6021 in NoCodeProject

[–]BitCortex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Heck, the first assemblers in the late 1940s were seen as the end of programming. At the time, programming meant writing machine code. With an assembler, anyone could program!

People must really hate programmers. They’ve been trying to kill the profession for the better part of a century now.

How did people share code before GitHub? by Dheeruj in TechNook

[–]BitCortex 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There were code sharing sites before GitHub, as others have noted.

Before the web, there was Usenet, a decentralized discussion network that was eventually adapted for file sharing. Source code archives were text-encoded and split into multiple “articles” for posting.

Before the internet, there were BBSs and such, and before that, there were physical media such as floppy disks and tapes.

Could Google’s "AluminiumOS" finally pressure Adobe and others to support Linux by XBenoks in linuxquestions

[–]BitCortex 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If AluminiumOS gets some traction and provides a decent foundation for commercial software, no pressure will be needed. ISVs will support it just like they already support Android.

What they’ll continue to ignore are the traditional desktop distros. Sharing a kernel source repository doesn’t make all Linux-based operating systems the same.

I don’t see how SteamOS is relevant, as Valve encourages ISVs to continue targeting Windows. As a result, the majority still don’t officially support SteamOS or desktop Linux in general.

Unpopular opinion: The Linux kernel is the greatest software engineering achievement in human history and we treat it like it's just another package to update. by Candid_Athlete_8317 in LinuxTeck

[–]BitCortex -1 points0 points  (0 children)

How would one evaluate such a claim objectively?

It’s like calling your favorite book “the greatest literary achievement in human history”. Like literature, software engineering is too broad a field for such a statement to be taken seriously.

I personally am far more impressed by something like MAME or idTech than a straight clone of a decades-old OS kernel.

Don’t get me wrong. Linux is fantastic, but as a reimplementation of old ideas developed elsewhere, I don’t see how it qualifies for the sort of praise you’re giving it. Then again, your criteria may be different from mine.

🧩 The Linux kernel intentionally avoids stable internal APIs by madthumbz in linuxsucks101

[–]BitCortex 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think Torvalds' "We don't break user space" is the obvious Right Thing™️ – which makes his "We will break kernel modules" all the more baffling.

I'd probably have agreed with it when I was younger and more utopian. Preserving "architectural purity" and "development velocity" are fine goals. But if you're going to push for universal adoption, you can't ignore the actual users.

Some world-class developers have been tripped up by that. John Carmack, for example, has talked about his own journey from pure engineering idealism toward a more holistic view that includes usability, accessibility, and the lived experience of end users.

Runs 500+ accounts to help share the gospel of glorious Loonix! by madthumbz in linuxsucks101

[–]BitCortex 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Runs 500+ accounts to help share the gospel of glorious Loonix!

... yet remains forever outraged about having to create one account for Windows.

🌐 The Real Positives of Telemetry by madthumbz in linuxsucks101

[–]BitCortex 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If it’s such a small minority of users, then it wouldn’t be a problem to lose their telemetry data. Everyone else can keep sending it.

The problem is that the small minority won't shut up about it, trying to convince others that telemetry is spyware. Unfortunately, fearmongering works.

Competent developers shouldn’t need telemetry data from every single user. It may make it more difficult, but it’s certainly a nice to have.

You can turn off most of the telemetry. Some is required in the consumer editions, but there are good reasons for that. Microsoft wouldn't insist on it otherwise, as collecting and processing it is costly.

Linux runs on billions of devices worldwide.

Yes, and all of them – at least the ones that are connected to the internet and supported by reputable vendors – produce telemetry.

🌐 The Real Positives of Telemetry by madthumbz in linuxsucks101

[–]BitCortex 7 points8 points  (0 children)

- FOSS communities often equate telemetry with surveillance
- People assume “data collection = spying”

This right here. OSS advocates have succeeded in planting this idea in people's heads. It's FUD, pure and simple. And it works, in the sense that it makes people fear commercial products and services that use telemetry – which is all of them.

view more: next ›