See a psychiatrist. You already have root on these systems… if you are truly a split personality then fences aren’t going to prevent your other self from doing whatever they want.

The processor designed for timesharing 8080 programs efficiently by adding 16 bit addresses to 16 bit page numbers shifted by 4 bits because who could afford more than 1MB of RAM anyway?

From the beginning of computing there has been a problem with bootstrapping knowledge… the person creating a tool gives it a name, and describes it, but knowing that someone solved the problem you have and what the name of that tool was always a challenge.

But that is nothing new… you posted in English but if you were to learn a different language you would have a very similar problem, and one of the most universal strategies for making that transition is to drill on vocabulary. Once you have built a small vocabulary then you can expand it using a dictionary.

The real message behind someone saying RTFM is that there are so many educational and search resources now that asking some rando on the Internet to rewrite a Howto on the fly is lazy. Simply typing the exact same question into Google will bring up a kickstarter set of vocabulary and resources. If you actually do this your question will often answer itself, and if it doesn’t and you start by pointing out why your efforts failed to help you with your specific problem and use the vocabulary (at least briefly) that your research turned up to guide the reader toward where your problem is, you should get less RTFM responses.

You must be off by a decade. Your reference mentions no OS and Unic was developed around 1970.

Oh, right, right, right… that makes sense… right? right? or maybe it is just another truckload of fetid bullshit. now that makes more sense.

If you are invested in Windows software… don’t run Linux. Being able to run Windows software is like a “patch” to get you by until you find a Linux equivalent. Pretending you can have your cake and eat it too will just leave you disappointed.

Linux has amazing software… but in most cases it feels very different from Windows. If you learn why it is different then you may start to appreciate Linux for what it gives you rather than what it takes from you.

How in the world did they manage that? Did they implement it internally as a TCP API and expose it?

Boss has different people for different functions within the company. A monoculture is more susceptible to systematic flaws, but it is also less expensive to maintain. It is not OPs place to decide how the company manages is computing facilities, so if WSL or Cygwin are not accepable compromises (OP and company have to both agree) then OP has to decide whether they are willing to go along with Windows or find another job.

Something to talk about during the exit interview anyway.

Easy if you make assertions without citations. The lid appears not to be effective at spreading contamination. https://www.ajicjournal.org/article/S0196-6553(23)00820-9/fulltext

Suggesting that her risk is going to drop by dropping soothing words for the lefty radicals falls to acknowledge the danger from righty radicals. Having the Cheeto pasting a target on her back means that such words will merely inflame the right even more.

Web search engine of your choice.

Keep in mind that every open source project scratches a different itch… they don’t exist because people wanted to collaborate for collaborations sake… they exist because someone (or some people) wanted a particular software capability. This means that many of them started because one person had that itch, but there are millions of itches so the projects that need your help very likely won’t fit into a convenient “top 100” list. Think about what you are interested in and search for open source software related to that topic.

The best approach is to not run untrusted software. Second best is to be a security expert and run it under the control of a debugger and analyze each instruction before it runs.

This is probably not what you wanted to hear, but every sandbox has flaws and software that is written by someone aware of those flaws can conceivably exploit them.

Tools like firejail are often useful early to mid software life cycle… before exploits become common for them. But there eventually comes a point where a zero day exploit is released and your peace of mind leads you to think you are safe. Their utility varies over time, and it is the nature of zero day exploits that they surprise you.

I think flatpak is a configuration management tool… not a security sandbox… but really the question comes back to what is your use case… do you want to become a security consultant, or are you just looking for a bit more protection from common exploits? There is no magic bullet… even dealing with the minutiae of locking down specific system calls will not protect you perfectly yet it can significantly increase the hassle of onboarding new software. Simply relying on signed software packages most of the can reduce the chance of encountering malicious software significantly over using unsigned packages if you are an ordinary computer user… and getting wrapped up in security issues when you are not aiming to be an expert can just add overhead to your life without making you significantly safer. Beware of the rabbit hole… it can feed your hypochondria rather than protect you if you let the wolf in through the front door and hope the locks scattered around will stop it from harming you.