It's protecting people from themselves, so basically like the safeguards already included in the models.

Yes, they are fine? They might no longer include full first party support by Microsoft for not being "new". Same as buying a used car (also comes with the "shady sites" for a far longer time).

Though this not making any difference by Microsoft not doing any support either way to make more money is a business decision by Microsoft.

So basically like US companies subsidizing offerings with selling user data, ads for crypto scams, manipulation for elections, making people addicted to gambling and so on?

Seems fair and an improvement as you can choose between that and not. Unlike say offerings from Meta where the data selling and efforts to further gambling addiction is always included.

Which makes containers crap on Windows and *BSD as they have to run the currect libc or equivalent. Thus you need to build a different container per OS version which sucks compared to Linux.

That's why we still have every basic security issue like hardcoded passwords, SQL or other injections, XSRF and so on repeated on an endless loop. Even if they are trivial to avoid.

No. But many lack basic understanding of web technologies or facts like that a browser can be used to access more than a single site. This leads to not understanding what problems cross-site requests can cause and thus the impossibility of understanding what CORS is for.

This is just cost of doing business in corrupt Soviet vessel states like the USA.

There are lots such products, like weapons-grade radioactive material, weapons outside the toy gun range, various biological material, ...

So it seems perfectly possible to bad products for security reasons.

By your question (and Betteridge's law of headlines): no, as they fail at least (2), (4) and (5).

I use Wayland and it has a "stay on top" option for windows.

So far it reintroduced several security issues and replaced the README.md.

They probably could do that as part of the hiring process.

Any plans to fix open security issues in that version?

I'm not interested in that. So I'll ignore your demands. Find yourself a different target.

If you think that fixing security issues is "unnecessary changes", maybe.

Though maybe security is not "in-scope" for you?

> That is not really in-scope for the project though.

Why do you decide what is in scope for the rsync project and what not?

Apparently the maintainer disagrees and also wants to fix existing security issues.

So given the rsync author did not make anything in the first place, they also cannot go destroy rsync as there is nothing to destroy.

But well done defending abuse.