Torproject disease infects WhatsApp - User experience trumps(sic) security

[Shawn K. Quinn]

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 at rushpost.com>
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20170115/a5425b50/attachment-0002.sig>