3 ms·
> Literally nobody has said this. I know of a few people, personally, who have said this.
by Freedom2 3y ago
> Literally nobody has said this.
I know of a few people, personally, who have said this.
- FridgeSeal 3y agoOk, but like, were any of them people of note, actively working on the project? Because it seems like the people who are working on the project aren’t saying that.
- jiggawatts 3y agoThe people that are working on the project haven't implemented namespaces, or any other security feature really, so what they say is immaterial. What they do is the only thing that matters.
- carols10cents 3y agoHow do namespaces measurably increase security?
- richbell 3y agoThey reduce the risk of supply chain attacks like typo squatting or Dependency confusion.
- littlestymaar 3y agoFunnily enough, they in fact increase it.
- carols10cents 3y agoNamespaces can't be typosquatted?
- richbell 3y agoI don't believe I said that. The point is that it's much easier to make a mistake typing "requests" than " org.kennethreitz:requests" (as a pure hypothetical.) It also means that more than one project can have a module called "utils" or "common", which once again reduces the risk of people accidentally downloading the wrong thing.
- littlestymaar 3y ago> The point is that it's much easier to make a mistake typing "requests" than " org.kennethreitz:requests" (as a pure hypothetical.) Sorry what? It's strictly the opposite: more character to type equals more risks to make a mistake. In fact, in the general case, namespace increase the risk of supply chain attacks, because it makes packages names even less discernable.
- worik 3y ago> I know of a few people, personally, who have said this jiggawatts