Comments by "TommyJ" (@ImperiumLibertas) on "Low Level" channel.

@TechnoMinded-qp5in Windows systems have hidden bugs that are difficult to discover because of the closed source nature of the OS. Linux being open source researchers are able to more regularly find vulnerabilities and patch them quickly. On Windows when a vulnerability is found it can stay within Windows and be exploited for a long time before being patched by Microsoft. Microsoft has less REPORTED bugs but more critical unpatched bugs than Linux. Linux has more reported bugs because it is easier to read the code and find bugs. Linux is certainly more secure overall than Windows due to its ability to utilize the entire software industry to audit its software.
4
@CheeksMcClappinn if that's your view on Linux you must have not used Linux in the last 5-10 years. It's extremely usable and there are plenty of out of the box distros that just work. KDE Plasma has a distro that has everything you need to have a seamless desktop environment with all the drivers you'd need to get setup. The experience is on par with windows as far as desktop usability is concerned.
4
@matirion that is not remotely true and you have no way to even know that. Windows does not publicly publish a significant amount of their CVEs. Linux publishes 100% of their vulnerabilities in public CVEs that are tracked as patches make their way into the kernel.
4
@matirion bro not every change is a bug fix.
4
@matirion I've been programming on Linux for 10 years and 7 professionally. I'm just a script kitty now I guess. Rip me.
3
@matirion bugs in Windows that are reported are patched quickly. The same principal is true with Linux except the likelihood of finding and patching the bug is much more likely. Linux regularly patches more bugs than windows.
2
AI + reputation based anti cheats are the future. No kernel needed. Let the cheaters write to memory all day. Once the AI detects non human input its game over. If the AI cant detect it the reputation system will fill in the gap and separate the cheater from the legit player pool.
1
Ed, the precedent has been set around data collection when Google went to court about the always on Google Home. Google successfully argued that "listening" is an active process where "hearing" is a passive process. They claim they are not actively "listening" theyre just "hearing" and reacting to what they hear. Similarly Im certain that Microsoft is following the same precedent that theyre not "collecting" data from you. Theyre just collecting meta data which isnt yours at all since you didnt create it. Pretty scummy.
1