4 ms·

You should really remove the entire PDF of the book that you've shared on a public repo. No Starch Press is a gem and worth protecting.

wutwutwat 4mo ago
Not to mention Adobe fixes PDF zero-day security bug that hackers have exploited for months https://techcrunch.com/2026/04/14/adobe-fixes-pdf-zero-day-security-bug-that-hackers-have-exploited-for-months/
- quietbritishjim 4mo ago
  Why is that relevant? Are you saying that this PDF is infected?
  - simoncion 4mo ago
    On top of that, who uses Adobe software to read most PDFs?
  - wutwutwat 4mo ago
    I'm saying pdfs are famous for being malware delivery devices so it's ironic (and silly imo) to distribute one with a hacking guide.
hggh 4mo ago
That's the first edition (2019), not the second (2025). But both are in annas archive, anyway
- 0xDEFACED 4mo ago
  first edition is also available on Internet Archive in multiple formats
- freedomben 4mo ago
  It's also freely available from https://kea.nu/files/textbooks/humblesec/linuxbasicsforhackers.pdf https://kea.nu/files/textbooks/humblesec/linuxbasicsforhacke... and plenty other places with a quick search.
- Arainach 4mo ago
  "Someone else has pirated this, so it's OK for me to do it as well" isn't a good argument. If you see litter on the ground already, that doesn't make it OK to litter more.
  - mag7269 4mo ago
    [flagged]
  - iamalizard 4mo ago
    I can think of a better analogy than littering for pirating an item at more than 1 place. When you litter, you add to the trash. If everyone littered, it would be awful. But if everyone pirated the same content on a different site/platform/protocol, it would still be 1 pirated item. The better, IMO, analogy, is if you have an ad glued somewhere, say at a bus stop. Another person comes with their ad and wants to glue it. They glue it over the previous ad. The amount of ads visible remains the same. There's a negligible disadvantage for the city - they have to haul away twice as many paper. But most importantly, the amount of visual clutter hasn't been increased if the second ad is glued over the first one. That analogy works if you're against piracy and ads on public places, of course.
    - Arainach 4mo ago
      People trying to justify piracy was tired in 1997 and it's embarassing now. It would be better if you just embrace the fact that you're unwilling to pay for creative effort and OK depriving creators of money - that isn't my ethos but it's at least honest and consistent. Arguing that piracy doesn't hurt someone is trivially wrong, lazy, and self-centered. This isn't even abandonware. If you don't want to buy the book, go to a library or read a publicly accessible blog, but piracy is bullshit full stop.
      - survirtual 4mo ago
        Did a tree ask you for payment for shade? Did the stars ask your payment for their light? Did the sun ask you for payment for its warmth? Did the Earth ask you for payment for your life? The knowledge that allowed you to flourish was paid in blood by our ancestors for millions of years. Knowledge is shared freely. It is not piracy to learn, but it is tyranny to restrict it.

wutwutwat 4mo ago

Not to mention Adobe fixes PDF zero-day security bug that hackers have exploited for months https://techcrunch.com/2026/04/14/adobe-fixes-pdf-zero-day-security-bug-that-hackers-have-exploited-for-months/

quietbritishjim 4mo ago
Why is that relevant? Are you saying that this PDF is infected?
- simoncion 4mo ago
  On top of that, who uses Adobe software to read most PDFs?
- wutwutwat 4mo ago
  I'm saying pdfs are famous for being malware delivery devices so it's ironic (and silly imo) to distribute one with a hacking guide.

hggh 4mo ago

That's the first edition (2019), not the second (2025). But both are in annas archive, anyway

0xDEFACED 4mo ago
first edition is also available on Internet Archive in multiple formats
freedomben 4mo ago
It's also freely available from https://kea.nu/files/textbooks/humblesec/linuxbasicsforhackers.pdf https://kea.nu/files/textbooks/humblesec/linuxbasicsforhacke... and plenty other places with a quick search.
Arainach 4mo ago
"Someone else has pirated this, so it's OK for me to do it as well" isn't a good argument. If you see litter on the ground already, that doesn't make it OK to litter more.
- mag7269 4mo ago
  [flagged]
- iamalizard 4mo ago
  I can think of a better analogy than littering for pirating an item at more than 1 place. When you litter, you add to the trash. If everyone littered, it would be awful. But if everyone pirated the same content on a different site/platform/protocol, it would still be 1 pirated item. The better, IMO, analogy, is if you have an ad glued somewhere, say at a bus stop. Another person comes with their ad and wants to glue it. They glue it over the previous ad. The amount of ads visible remains the same. There's a negligible disadvantage for the city - they have to haul away twice as many paper. But most importantly, the amount of visual clutter hasn't been increased if the second ad is glued over the first one. That analogy works if you're against piracy and ads on public places, of course.
  - Arainach 4mo ago
    People trying to justify piracy was tired in 1997 and it's embarassing now. It would be better if you just embrace the fact that you're unwilling to pay for creative effort and OK depriving creators of money - that isn't my ethos but it's at least honest and consistent. Arguing that piracy doesn't hurt someone is trivially wrong, lazy, and self-centered. This isn't even abandonware. If you don't want to buy the book, go to a library or read a publicly accessible blog, but piracy is bullshit full stop.
    - survirtual 4mo ago
      Did a tree ask you for payment for shade? Did the stars ask your payment for their light? Did the sun ask you for payment for its warmth? Did the Earth ask you for payment for your life? The knowledge that allowed you to flourish was paid in blood by our ancestors for millions of years. Knowledge is shared freely. It is not piracy to learn, but it is tyranny to restrict it.