bjpbakker

A capabilities system like pledge could be a way to safer use _existing_ packages. However, I think that it's not a very nice way to continue. Every application will end up doing its own capability pledging, and mistakes will be made. A lot.

Another approach could be to use an effect system like PureScript does. The main problem with Node.js packages is that any function you use can execute arbitrary code (such as wiping systems with an IP that is from the Russian region). Having an effect system in place the library author has no other means than to come forward with the side-effect, or code won't compile.

> "If I can't search the file for this variable and find it easily, it's a bad name"

Like parent mentions, this is about scoping. My rule about short variables is that I have to see their _full_ use (including declaration) in only a few lines on the screen.

Personally I prefer single letter variables especially in lambdas for consistency (x, y, z).

From the thread is becomes painfully clear how horrible Actalis is set up to act as a CA. Instead it seems they chose to break the BR by default. Almost 5 months to reissue a little over 250k certificates is not what you may expect from a CA that a major browser should trust.

The argument that there might be some end-users unable to renew their prescription seems mostly used to gain sympathy. Also this will most probably not be “a large swath of internet users”.

I do hope Actalis step up their game and regain some trust. Or it may become the next symantec.

There are various ways. One would be to use standard imap and decrypt the message on the client. Their bridge sort of does that but with proprietary protocol.

Either way, that has absolutely nothing to do with the security issues of html email. Eg phishing and tracking still works when you decrypt the message and open it.

> the author prefers dubious advantages to real improved security

Encrypting the data transfer doesn’t improve any of the HTML email security issues. So I fail to see how that would be “real improved security”.

But I do share the authors sentiment on the failure to not using open standards of both Protonmail and Tutanota. So maybe I’m biased.

> I constantly need to spend mental energy on remembering which is the Ok and which is the Error

Right is actually a synonym for Ok.. besides, Either is useful for _much_ more than error handling. That is exactly why I dislike Error for the left side; often it's just not an error.

> you went out of your way to choose a hardware combination that is known to properly handle PM on Linux

This is no different than with windows. Except that more vendors sell you windows compatible pre-built systems. With macos the situation is far worse.

If you want more Linux enables hardware it will help to vote with your wallet and buy hardware from manufacturers that do provide support for Linux.

Lol. This is actually the first time ever someone said I use very mainstream tools, so thank you for that! I can tell you don't know me :)

> reason the Linux Community don't want this sort of thing is that, frankly, they just hate stability

And yet I fearlessly upgrade my Linux system at any time. With OSX you first have to check if the software you use is at all compatible, especially if you use proprietary software..

Right, I worded that quite strange. Thanks for the feedback!

> ELFs still don't even have an accepted embedded icon standard FFS

Also Apple does not embed icons in their binaries. Their app bundles are not binaries, they are a directory structure. The icon is just another file, just like the _actual_ executable(s).

> you could publish a binary containing native versions for all existing architectures

This sort of ignores the hardest part of shipping binaries; linked libraries. Dynamic linking everything is simply not always feasible. Not to mention libc.

Also I don't really understand why anyone on Linux would want this. The fact that I can recompile all of the software I use, is a really important feature to me and not a distribution problem. I can see why Apple wanted this to simplify distribution via their Appstore, but IMO that's mostly to work-around their specific distribution problems. I don't see any of those problems on Linux.

(edit: wording, see below)

That _long_ list is limited to the "basic level" telemetry data and does not include e.g. automatic sample documents that Defender sends by default (those include you actual documents).

Microsoft proves over and over again that they are not trust worthy. I agree you shouldn't be using their OS, but sadly many people don't consider this a choice since it comes pre-installed on most PCs.

Since it's hardware sold by Apple I would assume that Apple figures that out with NVIDIA and collaborates. Apparently I'm wrong and Apple just doesn't give a crap as long as they can sell new products.

For a hobby computer it can be interesting to write your own driver. For a professional laptop not so much :)

You're correct about the card, sorry about that. Got confused I suppose. Indeed I meant to say I have the GT 750.

> I have no reason to suspect that Apple broke hardware they themselves sold

In fact my own 15" MBP late 2013 has a GFX750, which is no longer supported according to Apple Support [1].

The worst for me is that this didn't withold Apple from pushing the update, so running Mojave with an external monitor is hardly possible now.

> Nvidia is not a "good" company.

Agreed. Neither is Apple.

[1] - https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208898

> If Nvidia are being dicks in the face of reasonable requests, why would that be Apple's fault?

Because Apple sold the hardware /with/ the software, and now they completely broke that (<5 year old) hardware?

Since there's nobody else responsible for releasing Apple's closed source OS, what makes you think Apple is not to blame on this?

> Can you just not write graphics drivers for macOS?

So this is seriously what you suggest owners of an older MBP (official Apple hardware, just over 4 years old) to do?

Since both Apple's drivers and NVidia's drivers are completely closed source, I'd say it's hardly possible to write a working driver (w/ hardware acceleration) for it.

Owner of a late 2013 15" MBP here. I never been eager to upgrade to new mac version too.

> Some time ago I was forced to upgrade to Sierra

Until about a month ago I ran Sierra - which worked fine and in 2 years didn't crash my mpb once.

Then I had to compile a few ios apps for work, and since xcode was outdated on Sierra, I had to upgrade to High Sierra. High Sierra kept crashing on me. Several coworkers also had this experience and suggested to upgrade to Mojave.

Meanwhile Apple also kept pushing to upgrade to Mojave via an os notification they showed a few times a day. So I sadly ran the "upgrade" to find out the system was much less stable than before. No I see why. Sadly my GFX-750 isn't supported.

For me this is the end of the line on macs. Newer MBPs have broken keyboard that Apple refuses to fix, and are really expensive to the old hardware they come with. And apparently you cannot even expect a >$3500 MBP to outlive 5 years because Apple breaks it with their software patches.

I'll have to buy a new laptop because I cannot even connect a proper external monitor anymore. Obviously it won't apple product. I'm thinking to go System76.

You can still get patch emails with Git repositories. In fact, you can easily create them from your own copy of the repo.

This hack has nothing to do with the scm but everything with the carelessness of npm.

> I can't make sure my computer is running the code I want it to if everyone else can make my computer run the code they want it to

This is exactly why _you_ must be in control of what software can boot and not Apple or some other company. It's not exactly freedom if you must disable the secure boot feature to run your own software, it's a work-around.

If Apple really cared about freedom they would provide you with your own _unique_ key to sign your own software, so you can ensure that your system actually runs _your_ software.

Most items from your list sound a whole lot like the path the US is on. I don't believe these things are related to communism or capitalism, but more so to a few people who want to stay powerful and in control.

(edit: spelling)

> it is fundamentalist if the only reason for the rejection is that it's proprietary

Personally I don't use software that I cannot review myself for tasks that are important to me. That includes reading email. Hence, the reason for rejection is that it's not open source. I don't see how this makes me a horrible fundamentalist, but maybe you care to enlighten me :)

> it's harmful for the entire ecosystem

I also completely fail to see how me personally want to review source code is harmful to the "entire ecosystem" (I assume you refer to the FOSS ecosystem?)

So please tell us honestly. Do you include _any_ kind of monitoring in your software to track your user's actions, errors, etc?

You have to at least understand that (some) people have a trust issue with proprietary software, since too many vendors (including Canonical btw) ship with monitoring included.

IMO there's nothing "fundamentalist" about rejecting a _particular_ piece of proprietary software.

When trying to sell a niche product, r/linux might not be the best place to ask. I'm wondering if the author would have had the same response when someone on a windows or mac subreddit did not want to use their software.

Instead try to sell to people who you solve a particular problem for.

Since the article is from 2006 (as is the Solaris book) it's not that curious.

> The more lines removed, the better

I programmed Perl for a while so I like to make this more about _characters_ removed rather than lines :)

Of course the original post about Indirection vs Abstract was by Zed A. Shaw [0].

I strongly like to urge authors to give credit where credit is due. IMO this post should have at least mentioned the original article.

[0] - https://zedshaw.com/archive/indirection-is-not-abstraction/

“discovered by themselves” was intended to read “discovered outside of the embargo”.

Since you didn’t answer my question, let me try again. How can someone break an embargo they’re not a part of?

To me the mess back then was a very convenient distraction from the real issue, for Intel and their embargo.

> the "Lazy FPU" vulnerability in 2018

You mean that OpenBSD discovered this issue by themselves when they were left out of an ongoing embargo?

Please explain to me how one can break an embargo they are not a part of in the first place?