4 ms·
Genuine question here, why go through all the trouble of manually removing the networking code? Wouldn't it be much easier to replace the import/include/whatev
by _0ffh 5y ago
Genuine question here, why go through all the trouble of manually removing the networking code?
Wouldn't it be much easier to replace the import/include/whatever of the low level networking bindings with a stub library where all functions just immediately return with a networking error, as if the computer was off line?
That would make it all but trivial to keep up with upstream code changes, and keep the disconnected version up to date.
- bb123 5y agoOr you could just block it connecting to the internet with an application firewall…
- _0ffh 5y agoNah, I think it still makes sense to have a connectionless version. There are Linux folks who object to the concept of application firewalls and don't use any.
- blibble 5y agothere's so many ways round it on Linux they're essentially useless e.g. call python, call netcat, call perl, call wget, ...
- martinkunev 5y agoThis can cause problems. Imagine the code is written as to keep trying to reconnect or write logs every time it fails to connect. It's probably more convinient to remove the code trying to access the network than to inspect what this code does in case it is unable to connect to the network (and possibly modify it).