To the risk of contradicting myself, the less time I got, the more tempting it's been to jump into Apple's ecosystem. I love the hardware, I appreciate Apple's apparent care for privacy, but I just love my linux too much both in terms of UX and for what it represents.
Ha, and I completely missed the "Linux" part of your post, sorry. I do enjoy both. Apple, like you say, is a nice default for me because they clearly care about privacy to a reasonable extent.
"This is a concern broadly and future looking" does not in any way mean LG TVs are doing it now; there would be proof of this if they were, it would be easy to catch.
I think I would argue that linking to the security problem(s) and then writing about their style and how they probably came to be counts as discussion, but to each their own.
No logs provided. No replication case. A month old, un-responded to issue. The template for a bug report filled out completely incorrectly.
What is this doing here? If OP is the person responding, could they not at least have provided those details to help the bug report become more well rounded?
The mind boggles. While this isn't a great example, I'm worried about the direction "developers" are going in.
I always suspected this was possible but having it demonstrated is excellent. I would assume this would be of most benefit on an OpenWRT box which _does_ support hardware offload!
That's not what I meant. IBM published some scientific papers which explain the details. If you don't have the background to understand the papers and you don't trust the marketing that still doesn't justify rhetorically flipping the table.
Are literal placeholders. They haven't filled in the minimum information to make these useful:
"These Terms shall be governed by and defined following the laws of __________."
I am _very_ cautious around launches where they haven't got these basics correct. It's one of the first places I go to see if I should trust a new organisation or not.
reply