I don't think so? The keys were given to students but afaik they are intentionally valid past graduation and transferable to new machines via microsoft account.
Edit: perhaps you misunderstood - I didn't take keys that were licensed for university owned machines, I got a key that was given to students for their personal devices as part of some agreement with microsoft.
Although I have no qualms about actually pirating windows either ever since they started pushing advertising into the start menu.
Really? I mean, how would you do something about it if it meant your whole family would be tortured to death? Set on fire? These guys have horrifically cruel methods of execution. And despite all that he did go undercover. Balls of steel if you ask me.
It’s not everywhere in China either. I never saw that in newer cities like Shanghai and Shenzhen don’t have that quirk. But it is in Hong Kong and other parts of Southeast Asia.
I was always wondering when I see a sign saying to not flush toilet papers. Do you need to throw it in the trash can after wiping your butt? Because I always flush it, don't want to make the toilet room smell bad or give a hard time to the cleaning lady/boy!
Quite, Any browser that doesn't use chromium is the correct choice. Monopolies are bad, and it's hilarious that people are celebrating one of the demise of one most destructive monopolies of the computing age with "just use $new_monpololistic_product, it will be different this time"
A lot of the same people decrying the Chrome monopoly never the less push for more and more bloat in the web standard, thus helping to enforce that monopoly by ensuring that hardly anyone has the resources to make a reasonable competitor.
More proprietary than "basically Google just tells everyone how it's going to be"? Maybe. It'd be hard to make it worse though. What people seem to really want out of the web is a VM platform and a document layout engine, so why not design a new VM that is intended first and foremost to be an efficient application platform, and then make one of those applications an open source document layout engine? You don't have to be married to HTTP and all its woes either. You could even port a current "legacy" browser to it. And if that document layout engine is found to be lacking, we can make a new one without breaking everything because its just another application on the VM.
Hell, you could compile the VM with an HTML5/JS target and get forward compatibility too.
A worse standard is unlikely to win people over. Even a better standard is unlikely to win.
Take HTML, JavaScript, and CSS, remove 90% of the cruft. Now, include what people want like a much better table element that by default can handle Adaptive screen sizes etc etc.
Chromium and Firefox are open source so you can probably get support in them by writing the code yourself. But, good luck gaining traction.
At least Webkit/Blink are open source and have multiple implementations. With that in mind, how do we distinguish between a "monoculture" and a "standard"?
I feel the same instinctive feeling that we're just going back to the IE days, but is it possible that having all browsers align on a single rendering engine could prove to be helpful rather than harmful?
About 5 years ago we had 4 browsers with significant share - IE, Chrome, Firefox, Safari. Even 10 years ago Firefox had a decent impact over over 25% and IE was being brought down into the "managable" area of 50%ish.
uMatrix is the best at blocking all sorts of content. One can selectively enable and save preferences per website, and that is helpful since uMatrix tends to break websites using CDNs.
That'd be an upgrade over edge. Remember, Safari and edge are coupled with the OS. Safari team and Edge team can't even push updates without blessing from the OS teams. Chrome, even on Android, does not have this problem. Ideally we'd have more people using Mozilla Firefox but in the world we live in, I'd prefer people use Google Chrome over Safari or Edge (even when edge switches to chrome).
A downwards user share trajectory, but an upwards technical one as of late. But yeah, it's pretty worrying that a webkit monoculture is developing. At least webkit is open source, so google won't really have a true monopoly (at least apple and microsoft will have competing (if still webkit based) implementations).
A downwards user-share trajectory, and a downwards reputation trajectory. I don't think that all the hate Mozilla's getting is deserved, but a lot of people didn't like that one easter egg, or the mess with Pocket.
The Webkit/Blink engine is far from being single vendor, they are vibrant open source projects with many companies that contribute to the development efforts, pretty much all browsers except for Firefox will be based on it soon.
Web developers would rather have a single good engine, assuming that it's good enough and continuously developed.
IE failed back when they all but ceased development for a number of years and since it was closed source nobody could take it over.
Blink is a WebKit fork and is used by everyone, from Chrome to Opera, and soon, Edge. Apple and Google have gone their separate ways, and will make decisions separately, so WebKit isn't really contributing to the Blink monopoly.
When the list says Debian or Ubuntu it includes all software in Debian and Ubuntu. That includes software like Google Chrome, Firefox, Python, Ruby, etc. For example out of the 40 listed in 2019 in Debian 36(!) are Chrome bugs, not Debian bugs.
It's also OSS and it is much easier to surface security bugs for Linux than for Windows.
In my own research, I have attempted to send Microsoft security bugs only to be told they would be backlogged and reviewed later (which never happened to my knowledge).
> It's also OSS and it is much easier to surface security bugs for Linux than for Windows.
Shouldn't then the number of bugs decrease much faster, since they are easier to find? Unless they are introduced at even a greater rate than the ones in Windows.
No, because linux OS's includes a lot of software in their repositories and new packages are added all the time. Look closer at the list. "40 Debian CVEs in 2019" breaks down to this:
New and better tools are finding bugs in old code, so it isn't really that more and more bugs get into new code:
"But, your editor wondered, could we be doing more than we are? The response your editor got was, in essence, that the bulk of the holes being disclosed were ancient vulnerabilities which were being discovered by new static analysis tools. In other words, we are fixing security problems faster than we are creating them. "
That and saying Debian isn't like saying Windows. Debian is like 50.000 packages. Pretty much all CVES in this year so far listed as Debian CVES has been in Google Chrome browser...
Yes, the goal is to increase the costs to the attacker as much as possible while having minimal added costs during development and runtime of the software. Statically proven programs are great security wise but they are expensive to produce, while adding ASLR is not perfect but comparatively easy to pull off.
