> ...unless you think every advice must have a full documentation for tools attached to it.
Those aren't our only two choices, and this is pretty manipulative and fallacious rhetoric on multiple levels. It's difficult to take much of what you say in good faith, given how you persist despite it being pointed out to you repeatedly, and by many people.
Somewhere between your original comment and requiring all advice to have full documentation attached to it is a reasonable course of action. Another quality frequently exhibited by your comments is dealing in absolutes, which tends to undermine your points and make your positions technically fraught.
I think if you're evangelizing an OS people may be unfamiliar with, and for an audience discussing a particular vulnerability, the responsible thing to do is add even the bare minimum of context to your comment rather than continuing your habit of posting fairly bare links sometimes accompanied by terse absolutes as if they constitute substantive commentary. All that serves to do is turn people away from your beloved projects, and frequently backs you into technical corners requiring you to accept even the slightest responsibility for your comments.
Here's a way of doing it: "The bug described in the article still exists within a given VM, but Qubes OS is the most practical solution I've found to split Tor Browser identities across disposable virtual machines, which fully addresses this vulnerability."
I get that you aren't precise with your language, which is usually where people seek to correct you and you double down, but when discussing technical subjects we ought to be precise, lest we inadvertently cause problems for others. And you might, one holds out hope, actually learn that some of your technical assessments are founded on incomplete or incorrect assumptions.
It's easy to be a zealot, and anyone can do that, but it's not actually that much more work to make genuine contributions.
Those aren't our only two choices, and this is pretty manipulative and fallacious rhetoric on multiple levels. It's difficult to take much of what you say in good faith, given how you persist despite it being pointed out to you repeatedly, and by many people.
Somewhere between your original comment and requiring all advice to have full documentation attached to it is a reasonable course of action. Another quality frequently exhibited by your comments is dealing in absolutes, which tends to undermine your points and make your positions technically fraught.
I think if you're evangelizing an OS people may be unfamiliar with, and for an audience discussing a particular vulnerability, the responsible thing to do is add even the bare minimum of context to your comment rather than continuing your habit of posting fairly bare links sometimes accompanied by terse absolutes as if they constitute substantive commentary. All that serves to do is turn people away from your beloved projects, and frequently backs you into technical corners requiring you to accept even the slightest responsibility for your comments.
Here's a way of doing it: "The bug described in the article still exists within a given VM, but Qubes OS is the most practical solution I've found to split Tor Browser identities across disposable virtual machines, which fully addresses this vulnerability."
I get that you aren't precise with your language, which is usually where people seek to correct you and you double down, but when discussing technical subjects we ought to be precise, lest we inadvertently cause problems for others. And you might, one holds out hope, actually learn that some of your technical assessments are founded on incomplete or incorrect assumptions.
It's easy to be a zealot, and anyone can do that, but it's not actually that much more work to make genuine contributions.