egorfine

24 ms·

571.
by egorfine 9mo ago
Authors of useless rewrites do: * skip the hard part: designing, getting user feedback and designing again; * get straight to the fun part: coding in their favorite language after a well-established and proven design; * get to call themselv
572.
by egorfine 9mo ago
They absolutely will. Even irony aside, there is no point in investing so much efforts in Rust slops without removal of the original tools.
573.
by egorfine 9mo ago
I'm sure we'll be able to progress at supersonic speeds with this project once the Environmental Impact Study will be complete.
574.
by egorfine 9mo ago
Why not discontinue original coreutils and original sudo while we're at it?
575.
by egorfine 9mo ago
Contributed immediately. Thanks to sudo-rs: this stolen valor project made me want to financially support the original author.
576.
by egorfine 9mo ago
I would like to see some visible resistance from internet companies. Of course they can comply and then in five years nothing more than cat pictures gets posted online. (Not that this would be inherently bad)
577.
by egorfine 9mo ago
> Good they moderate. I'm not sure about that. I'd rather decide for myself what I want to read and what I do not. I'd love to not delegate this important decision to corporate overlords.
578.
by egorfine 9mo ago
They also perform age checks because various local laws require it, not because they are evil. They also perform age checks because they are evil and complicit with obviously detrimental local laws, not because they want to protect the chil
579.
by egorfine 9mo ago
It's truly sad to see social networks being complicit in doxxing their users under the guise of "think of the children" by requiring age checks.
580.
by egorfine 9mo ago
It's infinitely better than nothing.
581.
by egorfine 9mo ago
This is ingenious and actually useful. I'm looking for a new apartment and I always wanted to know how do these places look in a bad weather, because that's when I need beautiful surroundings the most.
582.
by egorfine 9mo ago
The definition of safety is something that we cannot agree on. For me, letting people mindlessly vibecode apps and then pretend this code can serve purpose for others - this is what's truly unsafe. Pornographic text in LLM? Come on.
583.
by egorfine 9mo ago
No worries here as EU is slowly pushing to ban OS-unlocked phones under the guise of "think of the children^Wradio spectrum".
584.
by egorfine 9mo ago
It's temporary. In a few years running random code on your computer would be seen a bit unethical.
585.
by egorfine 9mo ago
> Turning off SecureBoot only means any rando can decide what software runs on your device I see it as exactly the opposite: turning SecureBoot on means someone else can and will decide what software runs on my device. > spite Micro
586.
by egorfine 9mo ago
If.
587.
by egorfine 9mo ago
> client-side desktop Linux remote attestation gaining any foothold is to satisfy anti-cheat for gaming, which might actually be a win in many ways. It will be, no doubt. As soon as it is successfully tested and deployed for games, it wi
588.
by egorfine 9mo ago
> I use Linux since the Slackware day. Poettering is the worse thing that happened to the Linux ecosystem Same here, Linux since about 1995. Same opinion. > And, once again of course, it's from a private company. Full of ex-Micro
589.
by egorfine 9mo ago
> There are genuine positive applications for remote attestation No doubt. Fully agree with you on that. However Intel ME will make sure no system is truly secure and server vendors do add their mandatory own backdoors on top of that (iL
590.
by egorfine 9mo ago
> who controls the keys Not you. This technology is not being built for you.
591.
by egorfine 9mo ago
Propaganda begins with reframing. What russia is waging is not a war, it's a special military operation. War is peace. Data on Windows is secure. Linux's security is far behind. That sort of things.
592.
by egorfine 9mo ago
> we should improve the Linux boot process to be a tight security-wise as the Windows I hope this never happens. I really want my data secure and I do have something to hide. So, no Microsoft keys on my computer and only I will decide wh
593.
by egorfine 9mo ago
> allowing you to authenticate the parts of the Linux boot No, not you. Someone else for you. And that's the scary part.
594.
by egorfine 9mo ago
> resolve the Linux gaming vs. anti-cheat stalemate It will. Then just a bit later no movies for you unless you are running a blessed distro. Then Chrome will start reporting to websites that you are this weird guy with a dangerous unloc
595.
by egorfine 9mo ago
No one wants this for their computer. These kind of technologies are forced on users.
596.
by egorfine 9mo ago
They will. Just like they pretend it's the distros who made systemd ubiquitous. So it's going to be someone disabling this for end users.
597.
by egorfine 9mo ago
> I actually think this could be useful Yeah it could be. Could. But it also could be used for limiting freedoms with general purpose computing. Guess what is it going to be? > hostile to the idea of boot verification, because this is
598.
by egorfine 9mo ago
The motivation is nice. The idea has merit. It's the people behind this project who scare me.
599.
by egorfine 9mo ago
> will the maintainer of systemd use their position to push this on everyone Can you imaging the creator of systemd not to?
600.
by egorfine 9mo ago
> re-enroll your SB keys This is possible only temporarily.

More ›