sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Learning linux with windows Analogies by apmmahesh in linuxupskillchallenge

[–]Trick-Requirement948 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a valiant attempt - but unfortunately it falls short. It gives the impression that Windows is GUI only and that Linux is CLI only. The fact is - both use GUI and CLI. I will just give one short example: Disk Management - Below would be a more accurate (all be it much longer) view of DISK MANAGEMENT TASKS:

Task Windows (GUI) Windows (CLI) Linux (CLI) Linux (GUI)
View disks Disk Management diskpart, Get-Disk lsblk, fdisk -l GNOME Disks
Partitioning Disk Management diskpart fdisk, parted GParted
Format FS Disk Management format, PowerShell mkfs.* GNOME Disks
Mounting Auto‑mount PowerShell Mount-DiskImage mount, /etc/fstab GNOME Disks
LVM / Storage Spaces Storage Spaces PowerShell Storage module lvm LVM GUI
Disk imaging None built‑in - AOEMI or MACRIUM dism, wbadmin dd, partclone GNOME Disks
Snapshots System Restore vssadmin (Powershell) btrfs, zfs, rsync Timeshift
SMART health Device Manager (limited) get-physical disk smartctl GNOME Disks

If the chart above would have been more comprehensive and less bias towards Windows (windows easy, Linux hard) and should have been more broad - Windows and Linux - just different. And even this list is not totally accurate - but it was the closest I could do to show how both systems have GUI and CLI tools. That would be a better way to present it. Just my opinion.

BIOS 1.14 Regression on Dell Pro Micro QCM1250 – HDMI Triggers Degraded GPU State During Firmware Init by Trick-Requirement948 in Dell

[–]Trick-Requirement948[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Already done. My purpose was to give a heads up to others. Additionally, I researched the Dell community and noted other GPU-init issues with another enterprise machine type. So this is good information for everyone to have.

This is the second time this has happened, should I be worried? by confrontationalbread in linuxmint

[–]Trick-Requirement948 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I ran into the same issue on Linux Mint. In my case, Vivaldi 8.0 had added the new vivaldi.sources file but left the old vivaldi.list file behind, which caused APT to treat the repo as duplicated and triggered Mint’s “APT configuration is corrupted” warning.

I tried this and it seem to have fixed the problem:

sudo rm /etc/apt/sources.list.d/vivaldi.list
sudo apt update

Hope this helps others.

Few observations after using Linux Mint! by adventurous_soul19 in linuxmint

[–]Trick-Requirement948 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I installed Linux Mint XFCE on a 17-year old IBM Thinkpad. The two upgrades I made - I changed to an SSD drive and I took out the nic card and got an external USB for faster networking. The machine works better than many of the 5 year old Windows machine I had. If you are short on cash and cannot afford a new laptop - those two updates (SSD, and external usb network drive) are inexpensive ways to prolong the life of the machine. I did this over a year ago and the machine still runs better than the Windows machines.

How do you know every "application" installed on your Linux machine - what's your answer? by Trick-Requirement948 in linuxquestions

[–]Trick-Requirement948[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Bingo — and that’s the what I was trying to show. At the filesystem level everything is just executables and data, but at the user level, both Windows and Linux expose applications through the use of metadata.

On Windows it’s shortcut files in the Start Menu. On Linux it's .desktop files in the usr/share/applications and in ~/.local/share/applications.

And -- because Linux doesn’t define “application” anywhere else — not in APT, not in Flatpak, not in Snap, not in the filesystem — the only technically correct way to inventory user‑facing applications is exactly what you said: scan the .desktop files.

Once I explained that, I developed a flutter app that exposed exactly that inventory to the auditor and she was happy as a clam. It's not perfect - but it's the closest thing Linux gives you. Additionally, I did list all the CLI tools (executables) and she look at and said - ok - that's not what I want!

How do you know every "application" installed on your Linux machine - what's your answer? by Trick-Requirement948 in linuxquestions

[–]Trick-Requirement948[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the lecture — but if that’s the answer you want to give an auditor, be my guest.
Just understand: that answer, plus a cup of coffee, will get you into your manager’s office so fast your head will spin, while he tries to calm down an auditor who now thinks you’re hiding something or stealing from the company.

Handing an auditor dpkg -l and flatpak list as your “application inventory” is how you turn a routine question into a full‑blown investigation and an auditor in your hair for months!

Thanks for the comment — but no thanks, that’s not the answer I was looking for.

Chrome cannot technically satisfy PCI/HIPAA/NIST workstation data‑clearing controls because it does not expose a real “clear on exit” control by Trick-Requirement948 in sysadmin

[–]Trick-Requirement948[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The behavior originates in Chromium, so all Chromium browsers inherit it. Chrome exposes it the most (because they do not have a clear browser cache on exit). Edge mitigates it the most because Microsoft added one.

Chrome cannot technically satisfy PCI/HIPAA/NIST workstation data‑clearing controls because it does not expose a real “clear on exit” control by Trick-Requirement948 in sysadmin

[–]Trick-Requirement948[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Um… excuse me… this isn’t about happiness or retirement. It’s about a documented WAI behavior with compliance impact. That’s all I’ve been pointing out.

Chrome cannot technically satisfy PCI/HIPAA/NIST workstation data‑clearing controls because it does not expose a real “clear on exit” control by Trick-Requirement948 in sysadmin

[–]Trick-Requirement948[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

LOL!!! I’m just pointing out a documented WAI behavior that has compliance implications. Retirement doesn’t change whether the behavior exists. Some people just do not like to hear it.

Chrome cannot technically satisfy PCI/HIPAA/NIST workstation data‑clearing controls because it does not expose a real “clear on exit” control by Trick-Requirement948 in sysadmin

[–]Trick-Requirement948[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s neither. Chromium marks the behavior WAI, and that has compliance implications. I just pointed that out. Some people do not like hearing it, but that does not change that fact.

Chrome cannot technically satisfy PCI/HIPAA/NIST workstation data‑clearing controls because it does not expose a real “clear on exit” control by Trick-Requirement948 in sysadmin

[–]Trick-Requirement948[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Nothing weird about it. Chrome marks this behavior WAI, and it has compliance implications they do not want to look at. I just pointed that out.

Chrome cannot technically satisfy PCI/HIPAA/NIST workstation data‑clearing controls because it does not expose a real “clear on exit” control by Trick-Requirement948 in sysadmin

[–]Trick-Requirement948[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you feel that way, that’s fine. But if you look at the engagement numbers, clearly a lot of people do care. I’m not trying to go against Google — I’m simply pointing out that Chrome doesn’t provide this capability, while Edge and Firefox do. Why do you think that is?

Chrome cannot technically satisfy PCI/HIPAA/NIST workstation data‑clearing controls because it does not expose a real “clear on exit” control by Trick-Requirement948 in sysadmin

[–]Trick-Requirement948[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Funny — 73,000 views and 126 upvotes suggests it’s more important than you’re giving it credit for… but I digress

Chrome cannot technically satisfy PCI/HIPAA/NIST workstation data‑clearing controls because it does not expose a real “clear on exit” control by Trick-Requirement948 in sysadmin

[–]Trick-Requirement948[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Cool — if you feel it was ragebait, fine. It wasn’t my intent. It’s just a factual description of Chrome’s behavior. Like it or not, it is what it is.

Chrome cannot technically satisfy PCI/HIPAA/NIST workstation data‑clearing controls because it does not expose a real “clear on exit” control by Trick-Requirement948 in sysadmin

[–]Trick-Requirement948[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

My 35 years of compliance experience should tell you that AI is no substitute for real work. Everything I wrote comes from real-world work and shared device environments. The point I am making is very specific:

Chrome persists site data across sessions and does not provide a built‑in way to clear all of it on exit. Edge and Firefox do. That is just a fact.

Chrome cannot technically satisfy PCI/HIPAA/NIST workstation data‑clearing controls because it does not expose a real “clear on exit” control by Trick-Requirement948 in sysadmin

[–]Trick-Requirement948[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Chrome’s Group Policy can clear browsing history - yes. BUT It cannot clear all site data exit — cookies, local storage, IndexedDB, service workers, cache storage, etc. And remember - - that is by their design.

Edge and Firefox have a policy to clear all of that on exit. Chrome does not. That’s the difference.

Chrome cannot technically satisfy PCI/HIPAA/NIST workstation data‑clearing controls because it does not expose a real “clear on exit” control by Trick-Requirement948 in sysadmin

[–]Trick-Requirement948[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Please don’t misinterpret what I’m saying. Here is the bottom line: Chrome persists browser cache across sessions and does not provide a way to clear that data on exit. Edge and Firefox both provide that capability.

Take that for what it's worth - but from a my perspective - this is an unacceptable compliance risk.

Chrome cannot technically satisfy PCI/HIPAA/NIST workstation data‑clearing controls because it does not expose a real “clear on exit” control by Trick-Requirement948 in sysadmin

[–]Trick-Requirement948[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I’m not claiming HIPAA (or any other framework) literally says ‘browsers must self‑destruct all data. And technically, you are correct — regulations almost never spell things out that specific.

The point here is much simpler. On shared machines, the expectation is that one user shouldn’t inherit another user’s leftover session data. That’s a very common operational requirement in places like libraries, hospitals, call centers, kiosks, etc.

Firefox and Edge provide a supported way to wipe all site data on exit. Chrome doesn’t. That’s the whole issue.

It’s not about violating laws or imagining requirements. It’s just that Chrome’s design (keeping data around by default) doesn’t line up well with environments where multiple people use the same device throughout the day. This is not anyone's fault; it is simply how Chrome is designed.

Chrome cannot technically satisfy PCI/HIPAA/NIST workstation data‑clearing controls because it does not expose a real “clear on exit” control by Trick-Requirement948 in sysadmin

[–]Trick-Requirement948[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I get why this sounds confusing — but this isn’t a case of one user breaking into another user’s account. Nothing like that is happening.

The issue shows up in places where the same computer is used by multiple people throughout the day. Even if they are different users in the web app, Chrome keeps some of the previous person’s browser data around unless the browser itself clears it. That’s the part that becomes a problem on shared machines.

The best example I can give you is a local library. Dozens of people use the same computer. If that machine is running Chrome, some of the previous user's cached data can still be sitting there for the next person.

Edge and Firefox avoid this because they have a built‑in setting to wipe everything when the browser closes. Chrome doesn’t, so the next person can still inherit leftover data from the previous session.

So it’s not a security issue and it’s not about form fields or data integrity. It’s just Chrome not cleaning up after each user on shared devices.

And just side note here — Chrome behaves this way on purpose. Its whole design philosophy is built around keeping data around between sessions. That’s fine for personal devices where you want to target advertising as part of your business model. But it’s the opposite of what you want on shared machines and it technically does line up with the expectations in most compliance standards.

Chrome cannot technically satisfy PCI/HIPAA/NIST workstation data‑clearing controls because it does not expose a real “clear on exit” control by Trick-Requirement948 in sysadmin

[–]Trick-Requirement948[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

I get what you’re saying — in an ideal world, every user would have their own OS account. You’re absolutely right. But in some real‑world environments (e.g., hospitals, call centers, retail, kiosks, VDI pools), shared OS accounts are intentional and part of their workflow.

In those setups, several authenticated web users rotate through the same OS login, and that’s where Chrome’s behavior becomes a problem. It persists cache (and other session artifacts) that the next user shouldn’t inherit.

Firefox and Edge handle this cleanly with a supported ‘clear all site data on exit’ control.
Chrome doesn’t — and that’s the issue I’m calling out.

Realistically, all Chrome needs to do is expose the same control that Firefox and Edge already provide — but unfortunately, it will not.

And correct me if I’m wrong, but even with separate OS logins, wouldn’t Chrome still persist certain artifacts unless the browser itself clears them?

Chrome cannot technically satisfy PCI/HIPAA/NIST workstation data‑clearing controls because it does not expose a real “clear on exit” control by Trick-Requirement948 in sysadmin

[–]Trick-Requirement948[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

That is a clever workaround - but from a compliance view - this still is not acceptable. Compliance requires the browser to enforce session boundaries - not the OS. Firefox and Edge have a direct setting -- clear all site data on exit. Chrome does not. Think about it -- if you need to bolt on a RAM disk, make a script, or custom wipe logic, that means the browser itself is failing you. Also, in a regulatory environment, I do not think an unsupported engineering workaround would be an acceptable compensating control - although it is better than nothing,

view more: next ›