I don’t see how antivirus software completely failing to protect its users from “easy” attacks (rogue extension drops) should inspire any confidence they can protect you from more sophisticated attacks. Oh yeah this gun is useless now, but wait till they roll in with tanks!
Never mind the entire idea of antivirus software is completely ridiculous from security PoV and basically a scam to have people pay for a false sense of security.
It has some serious limitations compared to Bittorrent Sync. E.g. BTSync can relies on a tracker to find peers and uses relay servers in case port forwarding cannot be set up. Syncthing does not have anything like that yet, meaning that it cannot traverse many firewalls that you don't have under control. E.g. at work, all incoming connections are blocked unless they are initiated from within. So, Syncthing wouldn't work. It's pretty much the same with many hotels, etc. So, if you are on the go, it may not be any good.
Another problem that I have with Syncthing is usability. With BTSync I can be pretty sure that if I send a sharing link to family, that they will be able to install the software and use the link. Syncthing would be too difficult to set up for most family members or friends.
So, if you are looking for syncing some machines on a network under your own control, Syncthing is great. If you are looking for a Dropbox replacement that works everywhere with good sharing capabilities, BTSync is clearly the winner of the two.
Your best bet is probably to use a phablet and a Bluetooth headset for answering if you want to do VoIP.
Actually that’s one of the reasons I’m excited for smartwatches. Headset + BT-only watch + phablet + Internet AP over Wi-Fi/Bluetooth + VoIP over VPN seems like the most elegant solution to the backdoor baseband and general security and privacy issue right now.
Google’s project Ara would be the most elegant, of course. I hope this is the future, but I don’t know.
As someone not very familiar with D-Bus I’d like to ask what’s exactly wrong with the XML configuration files? It just seems like something everyone takes for granted. From the examples linked in this thread they seem pretty clear and readable to me.
> "when a package is changed, every package that depends on it must be rebuilt. This can significantly slow down the deployment of fixes in core packages such as libc or Bash, since basically the whole distribution would need to be rebuilt."
I'm just wondering, wouldn't it be possible to have an additional checksum for just the public API/ABI/headers of the package? Would this be enough to at least eliminate cascading rebuild for upgrades to shared libraries?