1350
Anon uses arch btw
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2023
1350 points (100.0% liked)
> Greentext
7581 readers
2 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
There is no way security would give you a full terminal with all kinds of stuff to break or leak.
I do have access to multiple terminals. Terminals are just another interface alternative to GUIs. There is no way I could work without. I simply have access to the plethora of crappy terminals you can find for windows, and wls2. And clearly I have access to the remote linux VMs and can attach to containers running on the remote clusters, and deploy there hardened images I build, that are secured full OSes just lacking the kernel
Of they are but your access will be restricted (no access to files or executables). That can easily make working with a terminal that much more exhausting although implemented for good reason.
I do have admin access to my machine via a system of temporary password. Admin privileges are really not the problem. Is the overall windows experience that is pretty exhausting for power users. And if one needs unix, MS sells to companies this solution of wsl2, as if it was real native linux experience, but it's not. It's just frustrating