Point being that OP must've installed Windows before and therefore should be able to build a computer hardware-wise?

Absolutely. Anything can be learned and unless things build on top of each other you can't really compare difficulties.

Not the guy you're asking but I agree. There would be no need for Falcon Sensor on every Windows-machine deployed inside an Enterprise (assuming that Falcon Sensor serves a purpose worth fulfilling in the first place) if the critical devices on their network were sufficiently hardened. The main problem (presumably the basis of such a solution existing) is that as soon as you have a human factor, people who must be able to access critical infrastructure as part of their job, there will be breakages of some kind. Not all of those must be malicioius or grow into an external threat. They still need to be averted of course.

I feel that CrowdStrike is an idea that seems appealing to those making technological decisions because it promises something that cannot be done by conventional means as we have known and deployed them before. I can't say whether or how often this promise has ever enabled companies to thwart attacks at their inception, but again, I feel that in a sufficiently hardened environment, even with compromisable human actors in play, you do not need self-surveillance (at the deepest level of an OS) to this extent.

And to also address OP's question: of course there is no need for this in a *NIX environment. There hasn't been any significant need for antivirus of any kind in any of the UNIX-based world including macOS. So really this isn't about whether an anti-malware solution in itself can satisfy the needs of a company per se, the requirements very much follow the potential attack vectors that are opened up by an existing infrastructure. In other words, when your environment is Windows-based, you are bound to deploy more extensive security countermeasures. Because they are necessary.

Some may say that this is due to market-share, but to those I say, has the risk-profile of running a Linux-based server changed over the last 20 years? They certainly have become a lot more common in that timeframe. One example I can think of was a ransomware exploit on a Linux-based NAS-brand, I think it was QNAP. This isn't a holier than thou argument. Any system can be compromised. Period. The only thing you can ensure is that the necessary investment to break your system will always be higher than the potential gain. So I guess another way to put this is that in a Windows-based environment your own investment into ensuring said fact will always be higher.

But don't get me wrong, I don't mean to say Windows needs to be removed from the desks of office-workers. Really this failure and all these photographs of publically visible bluescreens (and all the ones in datacenters and server-rooms that we didn't see) shows that Windows has way too strong of a foothold in places where plenty smart people are employed to find solutions that best serve the interests of their employers, including interests (i.e. security and privacy) that they are unaware of because they can't be printed on a balance-sheet.

Serious question how do you get bored of Windows during its heyday?

My first experience with Linux was Ubuntu 4.10 and it seemed super cool and all but I could've never switched fully during those days. And if we're honest most legit Linux users up until not too long ago were forced to have a dual boot setup because so many things just hadn't been universalized yet.

So just to illustrate where I'm coming from asking that question, my first personal computer (as opposed to family PC) ran XP and that was a pretty exciting time when it comes to market dominance and all the advantages that came with being a user of the biggest platform. Looking back I just don't see how I could've ever made that switch in the noughties let alone the 90s. The adoption just wasn't there yet.

The fediverse is such an interesting new human experiment (and I'm just saying this to you specifically since I don't expect this comment to make it past the moderators either). I was going in expecting reddit except not morally bankrupt, yet what you find are numerous bubbles that their respective communities use to shield themselves from whatever it is that they (for whatever arguably rationalizable reason) cannot accept to penetrate the safe space.

I truly feel for the emotions OP experiences and has outlined. I was just trying to level with them from an outside perspective and it is truly sad that there seems to be absolutely no platform left on the internet (if there ever was one) where one can be guaranteed to find community that puts the commune and the upkeep of its unity before any agenda or collective emotional guidance.

Yet some in here are making it sound like defending someone behind to give the teammate in front space is in itself condemnable. That's all I was trying to get at. Magnussen deserved all the penalties he got.

Not sure if I'm being ignorant of something here but Checo basically won Max a championship by holding up Hamilton. Nobody in the garage cared about Checo's race outcome in Abu Dhabi 2021.

If Magnussen can defend fairly who's to judge what his reasons are? Whether he's willingly sacrificing his own pace for the team or whether he's trying to stay ahead for his own sake. The fact is he had to extend the track. I too think that these time penalties make little sense because they don't get Magnussen out of Hamilton's way. I guess once Tsunoda comes into the mix it's hard to make Magnussen give the position to Lewis but I think the reprimands dished out during the race should be more oriented on reducing the disadvantage that the other car has suffered, not just disadvantaging the perpetrator. Especially in the sprint where pitstops aren't to be expected. Hamilton's race is ruined whether Magnussen gets 25 seconds or 5 minutes added to his total at the end.

It's quite the classic how it is so often assumed that one holding a discussion on the internet (not just about American politics) in English must be American. But I'm sure even knowing that I'm not it won't take you long to come up with a readymade label for me like you do and put on display somewhat overbearingly. Trust me I've been to the ol' Reddit rodeo before it bit the moral dust and I've been so to the tune of over a decade. Not trying to flex I'm just saying whatever it is you're trying to accomplish (and I'm not assuming bad faith at all here) it's not worth what you're willingly forfeiting in terms of potential connection with other people. I've been that guy you're currently choosing to be. I've lived inside that quote-by-quote-rebuttal brain.

You've arranged your space of neat little drawers and boxes of attributes and analytics so you can have the "correct" opinion on virtually anything at a moment's notice. Let me be the guy to tell you that all you're doing is playing yourself, cheating yourself out of god knows what it is that you truly seek. You think the reason no one is meeting you on par in your place is because next to none possess equivalent clarity when looking upon the world and its affairs. The reality is that most people - regardless of eloquence or level of reason - just aren't going to have that conversation because it's not worth what's given up in the process. As humans we strive for connection with our peers. But no one ever said that it's a contest of whoever has the least peers in verbal exchange gets a master debater placque on top.

If you want to see entire groups of people as beneath you or label them domestic terrorists or what have you, of course no one's gonna be able to stop you. But maybe also apply at least some amount of self-reflection here and there along the way. Through countless points made you don't have but one solution in store. All you have are subjective conclusions to say that X is bad and Y + Z are to blame. And if Y or Z try to have a conversation about it then they are surely just as bad as X, which they caused of course. I unsarcastically hope that people of your intelligence find the right channels to focus their energies on.

The problem is if Biden doesn't debate Trump Trump can use that on the campaign trail. Probably a lot more usefully than if he didn't have that argument of "Sleepy Joe's too scared". They're both old af. In their heads probably neither of them wants an open debate.

What we need is 2024 SOTU Biden mopping the floor with him but who knows how likely that is.

I recently "upgraded" one of my raspberrys SD cards to an industrial grade one. Seems to me like those are a lot slower but for that particular use case it doesnt matter to me. What matters is that the card doesn't die. It runs noticeably cooler when lots of data is being written to it so I feel like I must be onto something there.

I used to (over a span of about 4 years now) just rely on a RaidZ2 (ZFS) pool (faulted drive replacements never gave any issues) but I recently did an expansion of the array plus OS reinstall and only now am I starting to incorporate Docker containers into my workflows. The live data is in ~ and nightly rsynced onto the new larger RaidZ2 pool but there is also data on that pool which I've thus far never stored anywhere else.

So my answer to the question would be an off-site unraid install which is still in the works. This really will only be that. A catastophe insurance. I probably won't even rely on parity drives there in order to maximize space since I already have double parity on ZFS.

As far as reinstallation goes, I don't feel like restoring ~ and running docker compose for all the services again would be too much of a hassle.