Censorship in all the dictionaries I see don’t require it to be a government that is censoring for it to be called “censorship”.
Someone attempting to hinder someone else’s ability to reach certain information is engaging in censorship.
Security is much more effective and adopted when it is simple. My understanding is that SELinux is not.
This means not only will fewer people use it and more people turn it off if something doesn’t work, it means more people are at risk of misconfiguring their system to allow something they didn’t intend to.
This is somewhat mitigated from the fact that, from my experience, Linux Security Modules cant ever make you less secure than without it. But it still can provide a false sense of security if you misconfigure it.
Here is a good article showing what I am referring to, and providing a solid security tool: BSD pledge/unveil on Linux.
Depends on the environment surrounding the door, as well as the environment surrounding the computer.
Some people simply care less about their computer security. The debate stops there. Security operates on a foundation of what you want to secure.
By comparing two environments of someone’s life you know little about, you are commenting from ignorance.
True.
Though, you are probably going to have a much easier time implementing a change to your code that is present in a company’s published code, than you would trying to reverse-engineer a binary.
Sharing of the code I would consider “giving back” in it of itself.
It can be done if you mess with the initramfs.
The kernel starts everything else by unpacking an archive containing a minimal environment to set stuff up for later. Such as loading needed kernel modules, decrypting your drive, etc. It then launches, by default, the /init program (mines a shell script).
That program is PID 1. If it dies, your kernel will panic.
After it finishes setup, it execs your actual /sbin/init. These means it dies, and that program (systemd, openrc, dinit, runit, etc) becomes PID 1. If an issue happens, both could fail to execute and the kernel will loop forever.
These applications likely know they can get away with it, as people classify them as “too important” to uninstall.
The solution is to make them wrong: To uninstall. Who woulda thunk.
Its possible: Link
They have also had this issue open for 20 years.
And this amounts to just allowing the user to specify a different directory for Firefox on Linux (~/.mozilla is terrible).
Frankly unacceptable.
Linus already has a backup. Its Greg Kroah-Hartman.
There is no such mention by OP about the legal definition.