What are you on about? Yes they made sure their gadgets were easy to use, but Apple and Jobs were the pinnacle of "locking you in" on their ecosystem for the profit of it. Sure they weren't as careless about users when compared to Microsoft but they weren't too favourable of you using anything else. They invented this stuff.

Yes exactly. These companies hold rights for far too long in the hopes they can "milk that cow" at any chance they have. The products of these (and many others) companies are electronic waste for many after a while and so normal copyright laws shouldn't hold for them, it's just too wasteful.

That's because these consoles and source code are not always compatible. To make them it would cost them time, money and the compromise to maintain them.

I would rather these companies to be forced to open source their older hardware and source code, so the community could do something with them and not have all the hardware laid to waste. Or at least support the development of emulators

Can you point out exactly what is misrepresented and lies?

It was a bit tongue in cheek I know. I have a very similar setup, but why being judgemental with such a simple thing? It seems like a waste of time and energy. You need those to tweak the setup instead.

You're so kewl

You keep coming up with insults or inflamatory comments instead of answering the points, when I'm just trying to have a discussion of ideas. I don't understand why I am being unhinged when I even agreed with you partially.

I'm not a Rust programmer, I just play occasionally with it on pet projects. The languages I'm most experienced in are C++ and then C, I have no "horse in the race" of Rust, and I don't see c/c++ going away anytime soon, I just see what the language improves on them

You are not very consistent, first you imply that not "being a shitty programmer" is the fix for security issues in C. And then you say that any programmer can and will make mistakes...

Again you refuse to see my argument: yes I agree that viewing Rust, or any other language, as being a panaceia is wrong and following the hype. But Rust is provably better than C w.r.t to memory safety issues because it, provably, finds memory issues during compile time. I'm not discussing other types of security issues.

Yes C needs all that "freedom" with memory due to its low level use cases, but Rust is proving that it can also cover those cases (with the unsafe keyword) and cover the opposite cases where you want more strict memory usage and safety, so much so that you see now operating systems and firmware being developed in it. I won't argue and compare performance as I don't know enough.

You could argue that Rust by providing the "unsafe", keyword can and will have memory issues, but IMO the fact that you need to enclose unsafe operations in a scope allows for more focused reviewing and auditing

Ahah, I'm pretty sure many of the programmers on Linux et al, that worked on code with CVEs are still better programmers than you will ever be. The fact is that a lot of projects are just complex and they are hard to reason about on languages like C.

But I guess you know that. Keep trolling.

You're just partially correct.

With Rust you get compile time guarantees that your code doesn't have a specific class of vulnerabilities. Can you do that with C?