this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2023
954 points (96.5% liked)

Programmer Humor

19519 readers
123 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

System32Comics Art

Webtoon gallery

all 43 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] korstmos@kbin.social 120 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Because paying a few grand a year for a certificate somehow makes your software more trustworthy

[–] magic_lobster_party@kbin.social 38 points 1 year ago

The original Twitter checkmark

[–] Zalack@startrek.website 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're being sarcastic but even small fees immediately weed out a ton of cruft.

[–] xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They also weed out a lot of legitimate software, especially if it's non-commercial.

[–] Zalack@startrek.website 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not saying there aren't downsides, just that it isn't a totally crazy strategy.

[–] RippleEffect@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

Well it at least is an obstacle. Broke hackers won't get it or will have to work harder to get around it.

[–] ryannathans@lemmy.fmhy.net 7 points 1 year ago

Even more lols when you are gigabyte and your private key leaks. Also when you are gigabyte and your signed driver is used to privilege escalate malware.

[–] yogurtwrong@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

And you can still bypass it if you put your software in a .zip

[–] smolyeet@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

And that’s why certificates can be revoked, that’s the whole point, trust. It only costs a few hundred a year per Microsoft’s documentation and approved vendors so it doesn’t seem that much of an ask. At the very least you can look up the developer yourself, harder to do if the package has no identity associated with it

[–] Tathas@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago

Gigabyte has entered the chat.

[–] Zozano@aussie.zone 69 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Linux: OK

User: Oh great, I downloaded a virus

Linux: Lol. You should have read the 2000-line python script on github before running it.

[–] pufferfischerpulver@feddit.de 42 points 1 year ago

Actually there's extensive documentation on the arch wiki regarding this specific line of code burried 1673 lines deep.

I suggest you read the documentation before you ask irrelevant and, might I add, embarrassing questions.

[–] Johanno@lemmy.fmhy.net 13 points 1 year ago

It is your fault always.

[–] ephemerality@lemmy.world 56 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I wrote some open source software and looked into how to make that not happen. It’s not easy on Microsoft, and on Apple it costs more than a $100/year!

[–] Beanie@programming.dev 30 points 1 year ago (4 children)

you have to pay to have your stuff put on the app store??

[–] ephemerality@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago

Yes, on both platforms.

[–] Mic_Check_One_Two@reddthat.com 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Not only that; You have to pay for updates too. Supposedly it’s because Apple takes time to verify that the app is legit and not going to do nefarious things. So they don’t want a bad actor to get a legit app on the store, then later push an update that infects everyone with a virus.

But apparently a company did a study and realized that app testing rarely made it past the main page, with testers spending ~15-20 seconds per app. They’d basically open it and if it looked like it did what it said, they didn’t bother digging any deeper.

[–] nomadjoanne@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Yes. It's actually rather tragic I strive to run my business NOT using big tech. But we need an app for our users. On Apple this means you simply MUST pay apple. 100/year is not a lot. I just don't want to give them my business.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago

You have to pay for a license to be able to publish apps to the store, yes. This isn't a bad thing, mainly just for the fact that it stops a lot of trash from being put on there.

[–] ryannathans@lemmy.fmhy.net 9 points 1 year ago

Yeah we are an open source org and simply don't sign the executables because of this bullshit

[–] Fuzzy_Dunlop@lemm.ee 29 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I can navigate Windows well enough for my job, but I'd never choose it for personal use. I'm no Linux expert, but I haven't yet been faced with a problem I couldn't solve.

[–] Slopz@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

I'm the exact opposite! Use Windows for personal use, and use Linux for my VMs/Servers/Docker.

[–] Hazzia@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

I wish I were you. I'm constantly running into problems that I either can't solve, or end up spending way more time on than it's probably worth. My last Geruda linux install became unbootable because I tried to change the system font to a different existant preset. The error I got, of course, only had 2 prior instances referenced on Le Google, both of which were in completely different contexts than mine such that either the recommended fix did not work, or I didn't have the tools available to follow it.

I'm still not switching back to Windows though because fuck 'em.

[–] mfn@mfn.pub 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think your problem is you are using a niche Arch derivative that has a small user base. You should definitely consider using more mainstream distros so you can easily find the help you need until you are comfortable and feel confident with using Linux.

[–] nomadjoanne@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

I'd use a mainstream distro. I came to Linux in 2017, used Ubuntu for 4 years until I got tired of them forcing snaps down my throat, and then went to Arch. I have never distro-hopped, but I also have never had any huge issues with the mainstream distros.

The main distros really are well maintained and do tend to "just work". Dare I say, especially Ubuntu.

[–] yum13241@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Maybe try endeavorOS?

[–] svartkaffi@fedia.io 3 points 1 year ago

I was taught to use Ubuntu Linux by a middle aged engineer in another field who demanded "the brown operating system" on his computer over a decade ago, so yes, I agree, day to day Linux hasn't been hard for over a decade.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can navigate Windows well enough for my job, but I’d never choose it for personal use.

😂 What exactly is hard to "navigate" about windows for personal use? (or professional use for that matter)

[–] Fuzzy_Dunlop@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Didn't say it was hard. To be clear...by saying "well enough," I mean that I don't have any major problems with it...I'm just no expert. I find that there are two many pointless "utilities" that only slow the machine down. Both of my last two (brand new) computers have had both Windows and Ubuntu installed before adding anything else. There's actually still nothing on the Windows partitions, but whenever I switch to it, it's like switching from a car to a bicycle. It's ridiculous how Windows can be so, so slow "right out of the box," while Ubuntu just works.

[–] ErrorCode0@programming.dev 20 points 1 year ago

Mac os when u don't pay 99$ a year to apple to sign the app

[–] Crul@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] ekZepp@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago
[–] brlemworld@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Mac does it now too. But they do it because they are anti-competitive and want to make you use the Mac app Store. They need to be broken up.

[–] StenSaksTapir@feddit.dk 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No.

It's a security feature. Right click, select open, affirm that you meant to run the thing, then it works. This needs to be done once for that app.

You can disable this behavior too.

[–] narp@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It has of course nothing to do with the enormous amount of money they rake through their app store by squeezing both the developers and the users.

Why would they try to force people to only use the store by implementing more and more security features along the way!?

It's a mystery!

[–] lorez@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

But they don't force you. I installed Pianoteq 8 downloading it from the official site, not the App Store. All it asks is your touchID or the password.

[–] StenSaksTapir@feddit.dk -1 points 1 year ago

Because users, largely, are stupid.

Security usually comes at the price of inconvenience.

You're not forced to use the app store by any means and if you find it difficult not to, then you're probably the type of user they want to protect.

[–] LambLeeg@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago

Let's make it clear. The only virus on a PC is its owner. It never emerges on itself

[–] h_a_r_u_k_i@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago

Actually this is a good practice. If you don't know where the program is or if the source is not open, you shouldn't install blindly.

[–] sarmale@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)