On 2018-04-01 16:29, Martin Vaeth wrote: > An alarm sign for me was that palemoon was eventually dropped for > android after being practically unmaintained (i.e. with known open > security holes) for months/years. A similar alarm sign concerning > linux is that they were not able to pull the fixes for the assembler > code which relied on undocumented behaviour of <=gcc-5, even months > after gcc-7 was out. Even if these problems are not marked as > "security" issues, they can easily be some.
WTH is even assembly code _doing_ in a browser?? That is insane. now that I know this is the reason why palemoon needs gcc 4, I will definitely look into it more closely. > Experience shows that it is not possible to "hide": > Sooner or later a website you do have to use for some reason > will require such a feature. Eventually the number of these > websites increases. And then you are at a dead end. > Nowadays, it has already "practically" become impossible to > use exclusively lynx or (e)links; in a while it will be impossible > to use a browser which does not support certain new "features". You know the economist Keynes quote about "the long run". Applies quite well here. -- Please don't Cc: me privately on mailing lists and Usenet, if you also post the followup to the list or newsgroup. To reply privately _only_ on Usenet and on broken lists which rewrite From, fetch the TXT record for no-use.mooo.com.
