RaleyField

I have been researching this space recently, what turned me off was them scanning ports and then reporting to ISPs, supposedly because people were running vulnerable versions, but reporting could make problems for users because some ISPs don't allow servers on home connections.

And here's the money quote: "The effort has been quite successful. Of the tens of thousands server owners who were informed, over 5% had upgraded already in the first ten days."[1] In other words 95% were left vulnerable and they were responsible for it. Does not inspire trust.

[1] https://nextcloud.com/blog/nextcloud-releases-security-scann...

> a corporation that can choose to pay a certain class of people unfairly

You can choose not to be part of that corporation.

No. But manufacturers ought to warn their customers that they don't intend to support their hardware for longer that some period of time so that people can at least buy their crap based on an informed decision. It used to be that you could run Windows until it EOL'd giving you a good couple of years, now with point releases you are only guaranteed to run it until it reaches EOL of that point release.

I prefer my 21:9 on desktop, I feel like you'd be stuck with one window on 4:3, but with 16:9 you can make one full window and one smaller one and two full windows on 21:9. 16:9 seems more productive to me.

> attack his credibility

His credibility is already at 0, because he's an anon.

> in hope of pressuring him into releasing his source code..

Not my hope, I don't even install official slack client because I don't trust it to be built by competent people (it's web app for me tyvm), my hope is that everybody who installed this software formats their hard drives for the sake of other people if not for themselves. How do you think things like this http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15316394/ happen?

EDIT:

> I can assure you

How? In a cursory attempt I couldn't find any meaningful statistics, but that wasn't my impression when reading topics like this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13038114.

Also, 5 hour old account. Weird. Don't install warez people.

> use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted

You are licensed to use React even if you never agreed to whatever is in the PATENTS file. The reading where to use a source code is meant only to compile it, maybe admire the compiled artifact but never to put it anywhere near an executable environment seems pretty far-fetched to me.

Here's why I don't use Tox, the executable are provided by a bunch of anons and while I could compile the code myself I'm not really bothered, especially because I can't force everybody to do the same. I like my software to have some collateral, usually it's either someone's good name or their company. On the other hand, I can't find anything about you, your records show you live at Pobedi (victory) 112, 84, Moscow. Really?!

I'm saying this as a past user of slack and knowing that this doesn't help, but if they can't keep their frontend solid we can probably surmise their backend is just as shoddy, so we shouldn't be using it, no matter what client we choose to use.

Someone is this thread mentioned windows defender and I checked with virustotal where there are some others as well. These might all be false positives, even then it still seems wrong to run a random executable from some anon from the internet.

This is pretty stupid. Dev machines come with at least 8 gb or ram, why would anyone run a closed source software to save a hundred megabytes and risk compromising their machine. Meanwhile the account is 1 day old and the exe is being flagged by antiviruses.

> PHP has changed A LOT in recent years — especially since the release of v7.

I was curious and wanted to see if that is the case. So I checked for the most basic thing. The arrow notation for lambdas. Surely they must've added that by now. Surely they must've added that before Java did. Nope, still RFC. Now I wonder if it's idiomatic to pass those "long form" lambdas around when writing in functional style or is it something nobody does. In any event this little discovery makes me think parent's sentiment seems to be still justified.

> It powers a vast part of the internet including sites huge, tiny, and everything in between.

It's more like those vast parts of the internet are working despite PHP. Why do you think Windows is powering vast numbers of desktops? It's not for its technical excellency. ;)

> I wish I had the downvote feature just for your comment.

Same.

a) I know this isn't reddit, but it would go against reddiquette to downvote a comment you disagree with. You donwvote comments that don't bring anything to a discussion, which your suggestion doesn't.

b) You installed a piece of software of your own volition. If you don't want updates to your software of a certain kind then choose another software whose developers are contractually obliged not to change it. Or write your own. But don't push your ideas on us.

>It is essentially an illusion, a logical convenience.

Just checked numbers. That was my expectation as well until I came across code that experienced a bit over 80% speedup when HT was used.

> pen VS Code and then Sublime and be amazed.

At what? Using 5% more total resources? Great tradeoff!

Time prevents me. I still prefer the way Windows Explorer works with it's folder tree sidebar, and yet all equivalents on Linux cut it or have other major flaws to eliminate them from consideration.

Take those numbers with reserve. If anything they are 8 months old, RSS is 56 MB for hello.c on my installation of VS Code. I can run VS Code comfortably in VirtualBox on a midrange i5.

Edit: Also moving around test.xml doesn't take 22 seconds, it's pretty much instantaneous, although replace is still slow.

It's a conspiracy, got you.

Why is it suddenly acceptable to post(run?) random binaries from a random anon dude? No, thanks fsb.

> then called it through your operating system interface, then you _might_ be fine

Might, exactly. Depending on various courts accepting there is a loophole in GPL, and my layman understanding is that there isn't. Skimming GPLv2 I don't see them differentiating in derivative works between those that use compile time linking and those that use mechanisms like CLI. I'm weary of bringing after the fact constructs to justify something that GPL doesn't talk about. And after all how is CLI that much more different than dynamic linking - CLI is merely an interface that is subjectively a bit more friendly in certain situations but this imo shouldn't a have a bearing in legal discussions.

> If you are just calling the service through it's API

That's contestable afaik.

> through the programming language interface

i.e. dynamically linking which is usually understood to be prohibited unless linking code has a compatible license.

> either CLI

Here's the problem - you can take any GPL library, make small CLI or REST adapter for it and license it GPL as well, then use that adapter from your proprietary application - is that still allowed? Because if it is then GPL can't ever be enforced and if it isn't you can't call CLI APIs even if original libraries themselves provide it.

> Recently Firefox said they were moving away from threads to processes. I think that's a mistake.

It's the only reason I'm still on Chrome/Chromium. I like my exploding processes to be in a sandbox, but that's just me. It's been 10 years since Vista RTM'd and Firefox lagging behind IE. Still a bigger wonder is that the same company is also behind Rust - if you care about security why not put your browser in a sandbox first?

> Putting a couple ads in free games in the App Store is not "screwing over people". Nor is it "anti-consumer".

Games came with the OS therefore they are part of the OS. If you didn't want them to be part of the OS then you shouldn't have included them. If I'm paying premium then I don't want to be INSULTED with ads. Nor with telemetry that's borderline spyware which was my outburst more about. All that is beside the point which was that you're making a dubious argument that applies to only a portion of people.

> but to support the Windows developer ecosystem by promoting other apps and jump starting a viable ad network.

And to that I say fire entire marketing team. How will a couple thousand fools that bought $10 upgrades in Minesweeper help jump start anything? Does Microsoft employ underpants gnomes because the plan doesn't follow. Marketing team is burning bridges way faster than foss software releasing portion of Microsoft is making them, there's no point in jump starting anything if marketing shortcuts any trust customers could possibly have in the platform. Every one of my friends doesn't trust Windows 10, even nontechy ones and the best/worst part is, I didn't have to help them.

> Also note that Apple and Google do the same thing.

If they are super abusive then so can be Microsoft. Flawless logic. I'll add that Google and Apple started their BS on mobile platforms which were for some time their own thing and people didn't care if they were soiling their own turf. The trouble with Microsoft is that they are exporting this excrement to PC segment of computing platforms which had established norms that were in place for decades that you are now breaking. If you kept telemetry/ads BS only on Windows Phones literally nobody would care.

> if you got it in the first year.

You are really trying to get me out of the bounds of acceptable decorum of this site. Really??? I see a very prominent conditional in your reply. I suppose MS has a right to screw over people who got free upgrades (not really), but I got to pay for my copy of Windows with a new computer a few weeks ago and still get the privilege of seeing all the anti-consumer crap that comes with it. I'd also venture a guess that proportion of users who aren't using free upgrade offer will increase with time - how is your argument supposed to age, Brandon?

> if you're dumb

Everyone should get CS degree to operate a computer. /s

> there is no evidence that NoScript itself is harmful to the user

In the most narrow sense. Since I can't in good conscience recommend it to normal people I am considering it harmful.

Elon's new project can't come soon enough.

> Requiring a chrome extension limiting people to using chrome

And people who use extensions. Beyond ad blocker on some machines I don't use extensions on principle because of security concerns.

Because JS is ugly even if you put lipstick on it.

CIA is a foreign intelligence agency and in their opinion some protections do no apply to foreigners.