1. Monopolistic business practices to crush competition (Netscape, Java, web browsers, etc.).

• Microsoft was found guilty of maintaining an illegal monopoly and engaging in anti-competitive tactics against competitors like Netscape Navigator and Java in the 1990s antitrust case.

2. Illegal bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows to eliminate browser rivals.

• The U.S. government accused Microsoft of illegally bundling Internet Explorer with Windows to crush competition from other web browsers. Microsoft was found guilty of this tying arrangement.

3. Keeping useful Windows APIs secret from third-party developers to disadvantage competitors.

• Microsoft allegedly kept useful Windows APIs secret from third-party developers to give an advantage to their own applications, though this was not a central part of the antitrust case.

4. Embracing proprietary software and vendor lock-in tactics to prevent users from switching.

• Microsoft has been criticized for embracing proprietary software and vendor lock-in tactics that make it difficult for users to switch to alternatives, such as their failed attempts to establish OOXML as an open standard for Office documents.

5. “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish” strategy against open source software.

• Microsoft has been accused of using the “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish” strategy against open source software to undermine adoption of open standards. This is also shown in the leaked Halloween documents.

6. Privacy violations through excessive data collection, user tracking, and sharing data with third parties.

• Microsoft has faced scrutiny over privacy issues, such as the NSA surveillance scandal and their handling of user data with Windows 10.

7. Complicity in enabling government surveillance and spying on user data (PRISM scandal).

• The PRISM surveillance scandal revealed Microsoft’s complicity in enabling government spying on user data.

8. Deliberately making hardware/software incompatible with open source alternatives.

• Microsoft has been accused of deliberately making hardware and software incompatible with open source alternatives through restrictive licensing requirements.

9. Anti-competitive acquisitions to eliminate rivals or control key technologies (GitHub, LinkedIn, etc.).

• Microsoft has acquired many companies over the years, sometimes in an effort to eliminate competition or gain control over key technologies and platforms.

10. Unethical contracts providing military technology like HoloLens for warfare applications.

• Microsoft’s $480 million contract to provide HoloLens augmented reality tech for the military drew protests from employees and criticism over aiding warfare.

11. Failing to address workplace issues like sexual harassment at acquired companies.

• Microsoft’s failed acquisition of gaming company Activision Blizzard raised concerns about ignoring workplace issues like sexual harassment at the acquired company.

12. Forced automatic Windows updates that override user control and cause system issues.

• Microsoft has faced backlash for forcing automatic updates on Windows users, including major updates that have caused issues like deleted files and crashed systems. Users have little control over when updates install.

13. Maintaining monopolistic dominance in productivity software and operating systems.

• Microsoft has maintained its dominance in areas like productivity software (Office) and operating systems (Windows), making it difficult for competitors to gain market share. This monopolistic position allows them to exert control over the industry.

14. Vague and toothless AI ethics principles while pursuing lucrative military AI contracts.

• Microsoft’s AI ethics principles have been criticized as vague and toothless in light of their pursuit of lucrative military AI contracts.

15. Continued excessive privacy violations and treating users as products with Windows.

• Windows 10 has been criticized for excessive data collection and lack of user privacy controls, essentially treating users as products to be monetized.

16. Restrictive proprietary licensing that stifles open source adoption.

• Microsoft’s proprietary software licensing makes it difficult for open source alternatives to be adopted widely, as they have a history of undermining open source software and interoperability with Windows.

This isn’t even anywhere near everything.

It’s just that they seem to treat pre-release like they’re stable while never actually having a stable release. It’s not really an issue persay, it’s just kinda annoying how they handle release cycles. Pre-releases are supposed to be for experimentation and for finding bugs, not to sit on for months upon years.

I’ve been using lawnchair for such a long time, but one gripe I have is that it seems to be in a perpetual state of “Pre-release” with large gaps between releases.

Materialious
PipePipe
Tubular

by “the host” you mean the server?
With the traffic decrypted it should be possible to automate the inspection process to some degree, but obviously milage may vary.

By combining with other methods for intercepting HTTPS traffic, typically involving installing certificates or modifying system configurations like configuring your browser or operating system to log secret keys.

To break down the process of the cert method :

• Device Trust: Install a trusted Root CA certificate (issued by you) on the Android device using Root permissions. This certificate tricks apps into trusting the proxy. Without Root level install the apps may reject the certificate as User Installed.
• Device Routes Traffic : Configure the rooted Android device to route its traffic to the proxy on the separate system. This can be done through proxy settings.
• Proxy Decryption : Configure the proxy to use the corresponding private key to decrypt the HTTPS traffic coming from your device, this key is generated when you created/issued the Root CA.
• Traffic Inspection : With the traffic decrypted, you can use Wireshark configured to the proxy to inspect the traffic.
• Proxy Re-encrypts and Forwards: After inspection, the proxy re-encrypts the traffic using a legitimate certificate and forwards it to the real website.

It entirely depends on how you set it up and where in the transport pipeline you’re intercepting pockets from.

Wireshark

That’s a weird way of saying :

I’mma pull bullshit out of my ass with no evidence.

why would you care about a far away government collecting intelligence about you over the one that can (and will) actually hurt you?

Both of you are dangerous in truth. We don’t trust anyone. (⁠ಠ⁠_⁠ಠ⁠)⁠>⁠⌐⁠■⁠-⁠■ Why do you think we use FOSS?

You really just compared “African leader” to “a monkey”. I can’t, I can’t believe it. The irony, the sheer irony, it’s delicious, so very delicious, keep feeding me more of this shit.

You’re completely miss understanding the entire thing. You’re dear lead is being compared to an iconic, childhood beloved, Disney, cartoon bear 🐻, and you think it’s racist? How foolish.

this you?

Funny how you went from saluting the American flag to being a Chinese propagandist.

You’re the only one “comparing Chinese people to yellow animals” in truth. Your Irony is delicious to me.

iPhone’s Security Is More Broken Than You Think
How Tim Cook Surrendered Apple to the Chinese Government

False. “Chinese people” aren’t being compared to “yellow animals”. The only thing happening here is your dear leader looking like a cartoon Bear 🐻.

Removed by mod

Hell yeah!! So many needed fixes that have been bugging me for a while are finally fixed!!

_{Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)}

Why should we have the same standard for two fundamentally different languages with distinct design philosophies and features?
Even if the C coding standard was used, it fundamentally will not make Rust more legible to C-only kernel devs. Imposing the C coding standard on Rust would be fundamentally counterproductive, as it would undermine Rust’s safety and productivity features. Rust’s coding guidelines align with its design principles, promoting idiomatic Rust code that leverages language features like ownership, borrowing, and lifetimes.
This ensures that Rust code in the kernel is safe, concurrent, and maintainable, while adhering to the language’s best practices. While the C coding standard served its purpose well for the procedural C language, it is ill-suited for a modern language like Rust, which has different priorities and language constructs. Having separate coding standards allows each language to shine in its respective domain within the kernel, leveraging their strengths while adhering to their respective design philosophies. Having separate coding standards for C and Rust within the kernel codebase is the sensible approach.

!politicalhumor@lemmy.ml
!politicalmemes@lemmy.world
!politicalmemes@lemmy.ca

In any case, it’s the temporary file directory so it should be fine to delete them manually.
Just make sure that podman isn’t running while you’re deleting them, assuming it is podman.