On 01/15/2017 06:15 PM, Razer wrote:
If you really need security a small learning curve is acceptable and attainable. I also see an insidious trend towards cutting out 32 bit machines, Meaning po folk ain't entitled. 64 bit isn't inherently more secure that 32 bit should be 'left behind' for any reason beside... dast I say... "User base"? (Dast dast!) at the expense of the niche that really needs the security. Poor folks in authoritarian dictatorships and such lorded over by US installed strongmen.
The move towards 64-bit is not about security, but about the fact that 32-bit hardware is becoming increasingly more rare. My friend's 64-bit PC has a BIOS copyright date in 2006, and by no means is he usually an early adopter of new technology; by 2010 if not earlier it was much easier to get a new system that was 64-bit capable than one that specifically was not. I decommissioned my last 32-bit PC in 2011, and the only time I might need the 32-bit version of something is to run it in a VM on my laptop (it can only do 32-bit VMs, not 64-bit). For most code which does not actually require a 64-bit processor to run, it should be possible to compile 32-bit binaries. However we are moving towards a world where 64-bit is the rule not the exception and 32-bit is today what 16-bit was in, say, 20 years ago (1997-ish). -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com