cyphar

18 ms·

241.
by cyphar 1y ago
This is actually true for all programs (on Linux at least) because closing a file does not mean it will be synced and so close(2) may not return an error even if the later sync will error out. The more general issue (not checking close(2) e
242.
by cyphar 1y ago
I mean, I would prefer that it be done as part of a discussion with upstream but if you're talking about a GitHub Action it's not really that much effort to maintain in my experience. But even if adding CI jobs is not the preferen
243.
by cyphar 1y ago
As a maintainer of a few open source projects, yes it happens a lot. I want to believe some people just want to send small patches to projects when they notice something (I tend to do the same for projects I use) but my impression is a lot
244.
by cyphar 1y ago
It's not terribly common, but more critically it means I can work even when the source forge is down. (And for corporate stuff it means I can work on stuff without connecting to the VPN.) Also, designing around distribution meant that
245.
by cyphar 1y ago
To be clear, "fully distributed" also means "can use all of the features offline, and without needing commit access to the central repository". I can't imagine living without that feature, but I also do a lot of OSS
246.
by cyphar 1y ago
Which is what the original response linked to. :P
247.
by cyphar 1y ago
Go only "got this right" after a decade of kicking and screaming about how it wasn't necessary. Dealing with the vendor and go.mod transitions was incredibly painful. There wasn't even a mechanism for hiding packages fro
248.
by cyphar 1y ago
No, they're saying that they have one venv they use for everything (i.e., it's basically a working "pip install --user"). I think it's a good thing that pip finally decided to refuse overwriting distro package paths
249.
by cyphar 1y ago
That's barely 3 years...? I just released an update for a project I maintain that had had a 4 year gap between releases, but is still heavily used by a lot of people. I dread to think that we live in a world where software has arbitrar
250.
by cyphar 1y ago
I was more focused on the experience of monolinguals (where this kind of explanation is impossible), but yes I also experience this fairly often as someone who speaks more than one language.
251.
by cyphar 1y ago
This is called linguist relativity (nee. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis) and the strong form you describe has fallen out of favour in modern linguistics. A surprising number of monolingual people think their own language is the most adaptable a
252.
by cyphar 1y ago
Which raises the obvious question -- why make a service that you know will eventually be shut down because of said economics. Especially one that (by design) will render many documents unusable when it is shut down. While I generally find t
253.
by cyphar 1y ago
Of course, it doesn't stop people from asking if they can use it: https://github.com/reactjs/react.dev/issues/3896
254.
by cyphar 1y ago
That has been done in the past (GregKH has managed releases a few times) but he obviously feels it's not necessary this time.
255.
by cyphar 1y ago
It's used by subsystem maintainers to request Linus pull their changes (it is literally the only mechanism Linus accepts from subsystem maintainers, outside of a few outliers like the -next tree). But yes, most regular developers don&#
256.
by cyphar 1y ago
The term "pull request" comes from "git request-pull" which is the tool used by kernel subsystem maintainers to send emails to Linus to request he git pull from their branches (and merge them). This usage long predat
257.
by cyphar 1y ago
To be clear -- I am very glad that this issue is finally being resolved after such a long time. I just wish that there had been a larger warning about it from the start (especially once E2EE stopped being marked as experimental).
258.
by cyphar 1y ago
And you need to opt-in to the global-and-off-by-default "don't send to unverified devices" setting, right? Or is it no longer the case that even if you verify a user, unverified devices of that users' account will still
259.
by cyphar 1y ago
If a homeserver adds a fake device to an existing user of a room, the default behaviour of Matrix clients is to implicitly trust that device and send new messages to it. So any homeserver used by any user in a room could read future messa
260.
by cyphar 1y ago
Just be aware that Nheko has still uses the deprecated libolm (which has known security issues and is unmaintained) and the maintainers have said they are not interested in moving to the supported replacement library[1] for the past year. A
261.
by cyphar 1y ago
Also, malicious homeservers can add fake devices to rooms and the default client configuration is to send encrypted data to untrusted devices (and I have never seen anyone opt-in to "don't send to untrusted devices" because e
262.
by cyphar 1y ago
I mean, you describe this as a "hit piece" but then go on to agree with most of the points (perhaps disagreeing that it is a problem, but not disagreeing with the factual basis of the statement) or point to incredibly recent dev
263.
by cyphar 1y ago
Yes, 3.11 > 3.10 > 3.9 > 3.8 > ... > 3.2 > 3.1 > 3.0 > 2.999999 in basically every versioning system I've seen. The algorithm is very simple -- you treat each component as a separate number and the newest versio
264.
by cyphar 1y ago
What software do you use that follows this convention? I can't think of any (as a trivial example, Linux 3.10 and 3.11 were released several years after 3.1, and after Linux 3.9). Every package manager I've ever used works the sam
265.
by cyphar 1y ago
sort -V works the same way (1.10 > 1.9 > 1.1), as does every package manager I've ever used. Using floats for version numbers is just as insane as using them for financial transactions, but that's classic Perl for you (bonke
266.
by cyphar 1y ago
I am aware of that, and commented something similar in a sister thread. I was responding specifically to their claim that charging extra for source code is not in violation of the GPLv3, and that isn't true. But yes, sole copyright hol
267.
by cyphar 1y ago
You are restating what I said in my first paragraph -- yes, if they are the sole copyright holders they are not bound by the distribution rules of the GPLv3 in the same way as everyone else -- even if the GPLv3 did attempt to restrict the o
268.
by cyphar 1y ago
You cannot charge extra for distributing source code in this way under the GPLv3 (or any version of the GPL, for that matter -- there is a carve-out for physical distribution that lets you charge for shipping, but that doesn't apply he
269.
by cyphar 1y ago
But they are distributing binaries of the game to the public for free[1] -- the text you quoted describes the exact opposite situation to what is happening. In this particular case you cannot charge separately for source code under the GP
270.
by cyphar 1y ago
If the source code is actually GPLv3 then they should be distributing the sources without any additional charges (section 6(d) is very clear on this point). Of course, if they are the sole copyright holder they can make up additional rules,

More ›