Outlook is server authoritative.
Message does not exist on server and thus it can't be saved.
But it is available on that client - client was able to load it before it was removed from server - and such it can be copied out or discarded from client.
Yes. All corporation bootlickers screaming muh damaged bussines can eat my ass .
Protests/strikes don't start out of nowhere or just because people want to destroy stuff.
Hi, home site doesn't run without enabled js jit. Are there any plans to not rely on jit or that's not possible ? Or it's caused by 3rd party plugins ?
The homepage is built with Dioxus so it uses Javascript and WASM right now. Dioxus does support ssr (https://docs.rs/dioxus-ssr/latest/dioxus_ssr/) which could be an option to support better progressive enhancement in the future
SIP is another system that exists besides POSIX and the root user. With SIP enabled, let me demonstrate:
chris@chriscomp /usr/bin # sudo su root
root@chriscomp /usr/bin # touch testo
touch: testo: Operation not permitted
The possibility of privilege escalation vulns, like this one, exactly demonstrates the value of SIP! If someone escalates to root they can still do a lot of damage, but they can't do things like install a deep rootkit/kernel extension to silently snoop on you forever.
SIP also protects other things like your apple messages DB located at `~/Library/Messages/chat.db` . Even the root user, if running from a non-privileged origin process, can't read that file:
root@chriscomp / # cat /Users/chris/Library/Messages/chat.db
cat: /Users/chris/Library/Messages/chat.db: Operation not permitted
Granting an application/terminal the special Developer permission allows reading it though.
root is essentially a POSIX concept, and from a POSIX perspective this is still root, it’s just that the POSIX security model is by far not the only thing in play here.
There could be code in the system that directs IO and only allows write requests to parts of the OS if they include a signature from Apple.
I'm not sure if "a user with more power than root" would be the right way to describe that. The code would have a permission that "root" doesn't, but I wouldn't call the code "a user". It's a Unix idea that "a specific set of permissions" and "a user" are synonyms. Systems can exist where some permissions aren't represented as users.
No, there is no more powerful user, it’s just that the root user no longer has arbitrary control - it means that if an attacker compromises a root owned process the attacker can’t turn around and control the kernel.
The kernel has a number of things it can do: if you try to do a special thing it could force authentication itself - eg a “root”/admin user can still do the action, but a process with “root privileges” cannot, it can require the process attempting the action have correct entitlements, it can simply reject the operation entirely, etc. it can do all of the above: I recall there being some operations that can only be performed by specific apps, with specific entitlements, as special users, with immediate authentication (startup items and the like)
It’s more that there is far more protecting the system (and also e.g. data from different apps against each other, or things like access to your screen content), than the current user. Some of this is because we’re in a world where Macs and iPhones are far more likely to be single user machines than the UNIX machines of lore. See the PDF in my other answer.
Just because something is part of Internet does not mean they need to participate in World Wide Web and if they are not participating does not mean they hate Internet.
Imagine that every internet connected device needs to have webpage. Ridiculous.
I agree that it's a clunky simplification, but the point is clear.
Just read "non-vendor supplied client" for every spot "browser" appears.
If it doesn't support custom clients-- as real, first-class citizens, rather than a Twitter-style "we'll hobble the API access of any successful client" mentality, you're not going to get external search, interoperability, or much user control.
Dynamic typing is great for small to med projects or for prototyping but in bigger codebases it becomes quite messy trying to keep in mind what is what and can lead to logical errors or use of "bad" data.
Static typing let's compiler keep tabs on what variable can contain and you can define safe fully defined conversions between types and removes mental overhead of keeping types in mind.
Outlook is server authoritative. Message does not exist on server and thus it can't be saved.
But it is available on that client - client was able to load it before it was removed from server - and such it can be copied out or discarded from client.