That’s already how it functionally worked for each major release

Here’s their previous strategy: https://web.archive.org/web/20220917195332/source.android.com/docs/setup/about/codelines

Google works internally on the next version of the Android platform and framework according to the product’s needs and goals

When the n+1th version is ready, it’s published to the public source tree

The source management strategy above includes a codeline that Google keeps private to focus attention on the current public version of Android.

We recognize that many contributors disagree with this approach and we respect their points of view. However, this is the approach we feel is best and the one we’ve chosen to implement for Android.

As far as I can tell, this would really only affect QPRs, since the public experimental branches that get made after they throw the next release over the wall is going away

There’s no chance in hell Vance knows what that phrase means

Oracle happened to it

All the devs went to LibreOffice after that

I wasn’t trying to give a positive side, I was just explaining why Microsoft wants the feature

If the executable binary has to be signed with a key, similar to the module signing key, Microsoft could sign their binaries

This, along with secureboot, would prevent the owner of the machine from running eBPF programs Microsoft doesn’t want you to run, even with root

Kind of seems like they simply installed this dude’s tarpit from a few months ago

https://zadzmo.org/code/nepenthes/

Where did Microsoft put an official announcement saying the statement from an official Microsoft employee, Jerry Nixon, speaking at an official Microsoft conference, Ignite, was incorrect?

Edit:

When reached for comment, [Microsoft] didn’t dismiss them at all

Recent comments at Ignite about Windows 10 are reflective of the way Windows will be delivered

https://www.theverge.com/2015/5/7/8568473/windows-10-last-version-of-windows

Yes, in the sense that every device you own has these same commands

The alarmist of the original was that this was somehow unique to the esp32

If your device has Bluetooth, it has these commands

I agree, but unfortunately, this has become common since Heartbleed, and they seem to be able to sell their snake oil to CTOs…

I think the bigger complaint is that, when Galaxy was released, GOG said (back in 2015)

A Linux version of our client is planned eventually … Stay tuned for future announcements

Ten years is plenty of time to implement a launcher, or at least give a planned timeline

Sure, third parties have done it with Heroic, etc. but promising support and not delivering leaves a really bad taste to me

The article is a security company trying to hype their company with a theoretical attack that currently has no hypothetical way to be abused

The article has an update now fixing the wording to “hidden feature” but, spoilers, every BT device has vendor specific commands.

The documentation of the part just wasn’t complete and this companies “fuzzing” tool found some vendor commands that weren’t in the data sheet

The China part just came from OP

If they’re being shared as disk images, basically every Blu-Ray has an embedded Java program, also

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BD-J

The Ubuntu security team only supports the ~2,000 packages in “main”

Things like ffmpeg are in “universe” and only get security updates if you subscribe to Ubuntu Pro

ubuntu.com/security/esm

Debian’s security team has always been significantly more responsive than Ubuntu. It’s regularly had CVE fixes in older versions of Debian that newer versions of Ubuntu don’t bother to pull into universe

You can even trivially run your own server on an old Raspberry Pi.

I used to run one on a Pi 2 that would regularly have ~100 concurrent users without any hiccups

That’s separate from what OP is talking about. The on-device encryption is decent

For data on Apple’s servers (which they push icloud by anemic device storage…) Apple themselves publish that they give access to user accounts 90% of the time in the US

https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/us.html

Finding a searxng instance and entering a random search term, the first 10 pages of results all came from google.

Checking the preferences, there were 4 search, and 6 of the other toggles enabled.

Even enabling all engines and rerunning the search, the first 13 results were listed as google

Is it meaningfully different from this offering if all the results it picks seemingly come from Google?

If I disable all but mojeek and qwant, all the results came from mojeek

That may be the best option right now, but it’s still a far cry from an upstreamed device

They aren’t able to support devices longer than Qualcomm and Google maintain the random out-of-tree drivers for a chipset, and even state such in their “legacy support” for harm reduction

FWIW, if you decide to go with KDE and manage to delete your panel, it’s

• right click on the desktop
• enter edit mode
• add panel
• default panel

😉

• They don’t offer the government a “backdoor” to make it easy to decrypt user data.

Is what’s being discussed. Since Apple has a backdoor in the default configuration of their phone, they’re able to comply with 90% of all data requests.

The UK is demanding they remove the option to disable the backdoor in their encryption

You can kind-of sort-of use local only, but Apple makes that very inconvenient and almost 0 users do

Your definition of “rolling over” is different than mine. … What would you have them do differently when the warrants issued are valid in the legal sense/approved by a judge?

Again, your comments are agreeing with their decision to not allow full end to end encryption.

I would have them not able to decrypt my data at all

Sure, but if that’s your only concern, then you aren’t really concerned that the toggle is removed in the UK, either

The report is that Apple is removing the user’s ability to disable Apple’s back door, and you asked for evidence that they roll over for law enforcement

If you want governments to have access to a backdoor to what Apple touts as “Privacy,” your initial question doesn’t make much sense