@leeloo @GLaDTheresCake @flesh @benjojo

"Either way, there is no reasonable explanation that doesn't include the words "horribly insecure"."

There is one, alluded by someone up the thread: trolling. It is possible that the system is secure, but an admin with a (twisted) sense of humor decided to do some mild nerd-sniping.

Not very likely, just reasonable.

@levieva @alexanderniki

Это понятно, что они где-то там спрятаны. На ноутах так же делают. Я уже привык к тому, что в стандартной клаве я их нажимаю не глядя, даже в темноте. Fn2+[непонятная клавиша] — это не для меня. Других не осуждаю.

@alexanderniki @levieva

Не спорю. Просто выразил свою точку зрения.

Нумпад — ладно, дело наживное. У меня где-то даже лежит дополнительный. А вот как жить без стрелочек и Home, End и прочих Insert — мне не очень понятно.

Я из-за этого не люблю использовать клавы ноутов.

@levieva @alexanderniki

С одной стороны — да, с другой стороны, я только ею и пользуюсь (ни разу не бухгалтер), чтобы вводить числа с более чем одной цифрой. Тот же слепой метод печати.

@levieva @alexanderniki

Клава без нумпада — деньги на ветер.

@levieva @moskorato

Навеяло вашим общением о клавишах-модификаторах:

DerANgeD: not cool! ctrl+w closes firefox 
DerANgeD: I was trying to press shift+w and accidentally hit my ctrl button 
Triumph: whats shift+w?
DerANgeD: a capital W.

@nazokiyoubinbou @i0null

I agree that the principle is good. I also see that majority do not and have not for a long time done it. In the "before" days, when everything was not connected to the internet, it was possible to have, let's call it, legacy setups for a loooong time. As soon as our computers became interconnected, just about everything, starting with OSes (Windows, Linux, Android, etc.) and continuing with the most common programs, which tend to be communicaton-oriented, require constant security updates, that are rarely separate from function updates.

There is the ideal world and there is real one.

My guess as to why something that many claim to crave is not given is threefold: first, it would objectively take more time to maintain security-only support, even for those who are client-oriented; second, it is good for 'business' (see planned obsolence), where you need to upgrade to a modern, secure and shiny version; and, finally, because we let them, even as we complain about it.

If there was a true demand, we would have popular forked versions for FOSS (see Pale Moon), popular proprietary software that does not change needlessly, but we don't.

@nazokiyoubinbou @i0null

Theoretically, yes. Android, specfically, as you have mentioned, does that. Having said that, vast majority of programs do not, hence the OP.

I can also understand the programmers who work on new and exciting features, improve security, and cannot be bothered (expecially in the unpaid F(L)OSS world) with separating the two for the benefit of a few cranky users.

I assume if there is significant demand, such features (separating security and functionality updates) would (and do!) exist.

@nazokiyoubinbou @i0null

As I was thinking about updates in varous contexts, I realized that ideally we need to separate security aspect of updates from the function aspect (and, since I am dreaming, separate from changes in UI).

I remember sticking with Firefox 3.6.4 for a long time, simply because FF4 had a different UI, but it was not sustainable, because from the security point of view using an outdated browser is just not a good idea.

@cyberpunklibrarian

Specialization is for insects. © Heinlein

I am not sure how I feel about the above statement. On one hand, I cannot do anything well enough to claim to be a pro (OK, nothing that requires actual specialized knowledge). I am a typical jack of all trades (or, as Taz said, 'eclectic'), but master of none. On the other hand, it is trough specialization we get some amazing things. As usual, the truth is somewhere out there, and we, both individually and collectively, need to find the balance.