this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2026
558 points (98.3% liked)

memes

21841 readers
3413 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Opisek@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (2 children)

I mean, yes, if you can guarantee that all your software stack in 100% secure. In reality this is unfeasible on even mathematically impossible to do formally (reducible to the halting problem). So while bugs keep being found in things like the Linux kernel (naturally, nothing is immune to oversight), and they're always going to be, keep your software up to date.

[–] tomalley8342@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

even mathematically impossible to do formally (reducible to the halting problem).

Nah, if the programs are not arbitrary (and I hope they're not, considering that you chose them) then it doesn't reduce to that. But you are right that it is not feasible for most industries and he is right that in some industries it is not only feasible but required.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 hours ago

If security is the one and only priority, you wouldn't be running a goddamn desktop environment and all that other baggage. You absolutely would be auditing your entire stack. Because security is the one and only priority. I didn't pose the hypothetical, but that's the necessary consequence.