

That’s reasonable; I just wouldn’t have called my wife’s laptop my laptop I guess. It was either that or there was probably an interesting story behind it.
That’s reasonable; I just wouldn’t have called my wife’s laptop my laptop I guess. It was either that or there was probably an interesting story behind it.
How many laptops do you own lol?
I am fairly certain SmartTubeNext was a rebrand by the same dev.
If you make it only toonami ads I’m in tho
DRM is already the primary purpose of trusted compute if you read shareholder meeting transcripts; security is a marketing side effect.
Remote assistance is not rdp, it’s Microsoft’s support hook over the Internet, which requires telemetry to function. It is distinctly separate from, and not a prerequisite for RDP.
The rest of that I’ll have to look into, but disabling remote assistance seems sane in that context.
I wonder if other parts of the shutdown dialog or hover context menu have phone home functions that can only be disabled in roundabout ways; it wouldn’t be the first time. It would not surprise me to learn that the “which apps are preventing shutdown” dialog would be something that triggers a call to phone that data home.
I’d say that the ctt winutil does a pretty good job. I’ve been running installs cleaned by it for a good year now without major issues
A lot of industries are semi-forced into it. Let me give you an example I know of first-hand. Modern SAP stacks support 3 operating systems. Windows Server, RHEL, and SuSE.
You’re probably thinking to yourself: “but rhel is just regular linux, surely you can install it on anything if you have the appropriate dependencies, I’ll bet it even just works on rhel-compatibles like rocky, alma, or centos stream!”
And you would be ~sort of~ right, but wrong in the most dystopian way possible. The installer itself does hardcoded checks for “compatible” operating systems, using /etc/os-release and a few other common system files. Spoofing those to rhel 8.5 or whatever is easy enough, but the one that really gets you is a dependency for compat-glibc-X.Y-ZZZZ.x86_64. This “glibc compatibility library” is conveniently only accessible via a super special redhat repository granted by a super special sap license (which is like ~$2,000/year/cpu). Looking at the redhat sources it is actually just a bog-standard semi-modern glibc compile with nothing special. The only other thing you get with this license as far as I can tell is another metapackage that installs dependencies, and makes a few kernel tweaks recommended by SAP.
So you can install it on alma/rocky by impersonating rhel in /etc/os-release, and then compiling a version of glibc and linking it in a special hardcoded location, but SAP/Redhat put as many roadblocks in your way as possible to do this. It took me weeks of reverse-engineering the installer to get our farm off of the ~100k/yr that redhat wanted to charge us for essentially:
./configure --enable-bootstrap --enable-languages=c,c++,lto --prefix=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info --with-bugurl=http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla --enable-shared --enable-threads=posix --enable-checking=release --enable-multilib --with-system-zlib --enable-__cxa_atexit --disable-libunwind-exceptions --enable-gnu-unique-object --enable-linker-build-id --with-gcc-major-version-only --enable-plugin --with-linker-hash-style=gnu --enable-initfini-array --disable-libquadmath --disable-libsanitizer --disable-libvtv --disable-libgomp --disable-libitm --disable-libssp --disable-libatomic --disable-libcilkrts --without-isl --disable-libmpx --enable-gnu-indirect-function --with-tune=generic --with-arch_32=i686 --build=x86_64-redhat-linux
Thread model: posix
gcc version 9.1.1 20190605 (Red Hat 9.1.1-2) (GCC)
definitely worth $100,000/yr… much capitalism, many line go up
Any legal precedent for this has to be a win right?