One scar away from losing access to your ability to pay …
Biometrics can not really be changed. Except maybe through time or trauma (i.e. age or injury). They can be used to uniquely(?) identify a person - except maybe twins - at the expense of anonymity, which has it’s own set of problems.
But because they can not easily be changed they’re a terrible security feature. Once they leak, they’re unusable and you’re hosed. You can’t issue a new palm print for your bank account like you could a new chip card and password.
Also, just because you waved your hand over a scanner does not mean that you approve and consent of the transaction. With tap to pay there were ideas of mobile point of sales devices just tapping on peoples backpacks in a crowded area. You don’t even keep your biometrics markers in your pocket, they’re just out in the open for anyone with a camera. This may be bordering on paranoia, but a few years back (2014) German hackers from Chaos Computer Club took iris scans from Angela Merkel (then Chancellor of Germany) and finger prints of Ursula von der Leyen (then Minister of defense) using nothing but press fotos. Cameras have only gotten better.
TL;DR: Biometrics can be used for identification but should never be used for authorisation.
At 10: This crypto nerd also seems to be using a lot of proprietary software as well as an Invidia GPU. Dave, have you got more information?
-Yes I do actually. Additionally, This Linux noob appears to be using a Chinese smartphone! People like this are certainly a disgrace to the Linux community.
Tbh, I don’t really get the hate that Ubuntu gets.
I mean, I do understand that people don’t like some of the decisions made with Ubuntu (e.g. snap), but especially for people who don’t use an OS for the sake of using that OS and just want to use their PC to get stuff done, Ubuntu/Kubuntu are quite good.
You have a mostly consistent UI that can do most important configs without touching CLI. Manuals and simple guides are easy to find, even in other languages than English (which is important for quite a big number of people outside the US).
And contrary to some other, smaller distros, Ubuntu isn’t run by just 1-2 people and you can trust in it still existing in 10 years. (Obviously, this is true for many other distros, but some quite widly used distros are run just by a tiny team of hobbyists)
I mean, I’d get the reaction if someone claimed they are Linux users because they use Android (though with enough knowledge you can also get a full Linux distro running on Android in chroot).
“Use Snaps”
“No” (installs .deb)
“Fuck you, use Snaps”
(The Snap Store is a proprietary closed-source black-box that updates your snaps without asking and every part of this statement was a deliberate planned feature by Canonical)
I looked into it. You’re right.
They implemented the ability to permanently hold all automatic updates.
After five years of debate during which they consistently claimed that the whole point of Snaps is that developers can push whatever, whenever.
I mentioned this in the comment you answered to. But as I said, this might be an issue for people that use Linux because they really hate anything that isn’t GPL, but 97% of the people on this planet care more about whether something is simple to use than what license it uses, as evidenced by the market share of Windows, Android, Chromebooks and Apple products.
Wouldn’t it be better to get some of them to use Ubuntu with snaps than to stay on their proprietary platforms, because packet management sucks and conflicts are basically impossible to solve for someone who’s not a software developer?
Linus swore that Bitkeeper wouldn’t alter the agreement further, like a mad egotistical movie villain.
Canonical is very clearly funneling their userbase towards a Snap-only environment (something that already exists as an option).
As the sole keyholders, and as a for-profit business, what is the next step?
Is it to maintain a wealth of options, even when that cuts into profit margins? What about when those options are competing products (think Gnome and KDE back in the Unity days)?
These things just do not make sense from a business perspective, and they will not be necessary once their userbase is locked into the Snap walled garden.
As to your point about licenses and market share, default non-options and limited choices aren’t compatible with conversations about choice.
I really don’t like that sentiment though. Software development isn’t for free just because you slap GPL on it. These devs need to be paid somehow if they are supposed to do more than 3h/week.
You can also see the same thing in the Linux kernel. Many Kernel devs are employed by Microsoft, Google, the NSA and many other commercial entities.
infosec.pub
Top