tux0r

Sure thing, because that’s exactly a one-person job.

Seriously, please try to not be that person on the internet.

Or just use an OS that natively supports Affinity…

Or just use an OS that natively supports Affinity…

I might, indeed, have miscommunicated my assumptions. Thank you for pointing it out.

it feels like you might have some kinda superiority complex here…

I couldn’t care less which software other people use. It seemed strange to me to run an operating system that won’t support the software I need natively, that’s all.

WASM is often used alongside Javascript, but there’s actually nothing which inherently requires it.

There is no established way to load WASM in your browser without JavaScript code that does it for you, so there actually is.

Can you explain why you feel that locally running Javascript is more insecure than using, say, locally running Python code, for encryption?

A web browser is the most vulnerable software on your computer.

To stick with the one example I brought, namely GnuPG encrypted e-mails: Running GnuPG locally on my machine to encrypt/decrypt/verify an e-mail before pasting the result into (e.g.) my e-mail client is reasonably secure. GnuPG has been audited thoroughly enough, so it’s (relatively) safe to assume that no bad actor will read and/or modify the e-mail on the way. I am not aware of any JavaScript alternative with a similar security record.

I think we’re derailing a bit though. My original comment was:

You can’t do that (= secure encryption) in a browser.

Locally and in a browser are, in real life, mostly different things and I assume you know that. GnuPG in webmail software without having used it locally first, which is what I was hinting at, just isn’t secure.

edit: Bed time, might continue this tomorrow after work if I’ll find some Lemmy time… good night for now!

Why would I care if you block me?

Please, by all means, don’t care. I, for one, care about whether strangers on the internet try to dunning-kruger me. Life’s too short for that.

I’ve used NetBSD on a server before, and it was fine, but like, what reason would I have to move away from Linux?

The same reason why weirdos want Windows users to move away from Windows, I guess. It is lovely to have options, and (given the continuing enshittification of much of Linux, with systemd spreading through the whole ecosystem like a virus, less customizability, more security fails, …) BSD is quite an appalling option. It runs (almost) all Linux software, is notably more mature (it existed long before Linux and quite a few companies relied and worked on it for decades, making it enterprise-ready by design), has a very nice community (and me) and it runs on old hardware much longer than Linux does; ironically, that’s what Linux users think they do better than Windows. Heh.

And the BSDs (I, personally, use OpenBSD on a few servers, only recently started trying NetBSD on a spare laptop) are only a subset of your free alternatives, with Solaris (illumos) and (e.g.) Haiku being two others. There will always be one system that does exactly what you want and how you want it.

You are aware that WASM requires JS, right?
I mean, yes, running the application itself would be secure, but that’s not in the browser. You cannot trust your browser. Ever.

ok lol

Please don’t troll. Last warning before mute.

I’ve never particularly cared to get into BSD, because I have no incentive to do so.

You should. It can’t hurt to know alternatives, you know.

Ok, I’ll bite:

You can run fully-local resources in a browser, such as browser extensions, locally hosted tools, even just running in a .html file on your local disk somewhere.

How would you do that without violating essential security measurements?

vastly more popular

Windows is more popular than Linux, so is macOS. Now is that a reason or not?

has infinitely more support options and software available than alternatives

False.

if you … want some tool, it’s far more likely to be available for Linux than any other free alternative.

Which tool does (e.g.) FreeBSD lack for you?

Not sure if you’re just trolling at this point.

You said:

Of course you can do secure encryption in a browser.

No, you can’t. I explained why.

All of that is true for most other operating systems, some of which are even more customizable than some of today’s Linux distributions. My question was “why Linux?”, not “why not Windows?”.

There are numerous ways to place decryption backdoors into a website’s JavaScript. How would you make sure that there is no MITM when trying to safely encrypt (e.g.) an e-mail in your browser?

Of course you can do secure encryption in a browser.

Talking about “bad takes”, aren’t we? There is no way to ensure that your end-to-end encryption is not decrypted on the fly when done by a website (= a potential attacker).

If you use a Windows “translation layer” for your software anyway, why would you choose Linux as the host platform in the first place?

Random blokes at The Verge do not have the same use cases as anyone else. “Works for me” is never the same thing as “works for you”. Linux doesn’t even have a good vector graphics editor. (No, Inkscape is not good.)

That’s a very loose definition indeed.

“Close enough to a browser” isn’t a browser. GnuPG in a browser just won’t work and most other encryption facilities aren’t quite as secure (and transparent).

If you need an emulator (yeah, “Wine Is Not an Emulator” yadda yadda, it still makes your software think you run a different OS) to run much of your most important software, you chose the wrong operating system.

Counter-example: secure encryption. You can’t do that in a browser.

Heresy!