Greentext

8298 readers

1210 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

Anon is often crazy.
Anon is often depressed.
Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works

559

Anon is incompatible (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 1 day ago by Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works

209 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I think the main reason is priorities.

USB is standardised. File structures are also standardized (if you ignore different storage formats like ntfs, FAT32, etc). Everything that USB drives have to deal with is solved and standardized.

Meanwhile, network specs are continually changing due to security concerns. If you have 2 devices connected, you need to have a secure way for those 2 devices to verify that they're the correct devices. That's not as big of a concern for USB drives, because if a bad actor has physical access to a computer you generally have bigger problems to deal with.

Plus, hardware vendors like murkying the waters by pushing for their internal implementations when possible, preventing standardization across the entire industry

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago

I absolutely see the security side of it, but I would assume that could be solved quite easily by having some kind of "on/off" switch combined with only allowing manually verified connections.

I mean, we basically have this for bluetooth, where I can connect to pretty much any bluetooth device, and just confirm or deny the connection request. It surprises me that some similar protocol hasn't been invented for wifi, where I could see other machines on the network (like you can see nearby bluetooth devices), and send a connection request that the owner of that device can accept or deny. Any machine connected to the internet is already "wide open" in the sense that it's constantly receiving loads of wireless data from all across the globe. We've been able to standardise that in a "safe enough" way, I don't see how doing the same thing over a local network could be any more difficult.