can09

3 ms·

1.
by can09 10y ago
An interesting counter-point, but rather poorly written, and far too short. You need to flesh your ideas and accusations out properly, and your ending line makes for a lazy and frankly rather pathetic conclusion. You should invest a lot mor
2.
by can09 10y ago
Thank you for reminding me why I read HN comment sections. I appreciate this sort of earnest, well-intentioned dialogue. It is unfortunately not so prevalent on the wider web.
3.
by can09 10y ago
The issue of official binpatches is not a critical problem, but it is still a problem. It is a security and usability issue simply not present in the vast majority of nix systems, and that should be acknowledged rather than downplayed, as t
4.
by can09 10y ago
We are not talking about the same thing. I am not arguing they should be more responsible for third-party codebases, this is not an issue of ports vs base. This is far more an issue of infrastructure, of source vs binary. Simply offering bi
5.
by can09 10y ago
The fact that virtually every other nix system, large and small, can provide this standard functionality, and the OpenBSD project cannot. Having to rely on third parties for convenient updates is an obvious potential security issue. Firstly
6.
by can09 10y ago
Does it seem a little embarrassing to anyone else that this is necessary? OpenBSD is supposedly the most secure nix platform available, and yet users have to resort to third-parties to get functionality that is available on nearly every oth
7.
by can09 12y ago
What he seems to be getting at is a much larger, more revolutionary approach to not just "the web", but "the internet" as we know it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Named_data_networking