hvdijk

24 ms·

211.
by hvdijk 6y ago
They aren't carrying forward the functionality of WSL1. Yes, there are issues that cannot be fixed in WSL1. There are also issues that aren't, and quite likely can't be, fixed in WSL2, that do work in WSL1. The file system co
212.
by hvdijk 6y ago
True, but if MS hadn't presented WSL2 as a variant of WSL, any issues fixed in WSL2 wouldn't count as fixed in the WSL issue tracker. I would prefer it if their issue tracker marked these, more honestly in my opinion, as "Thi
213.
by hvdijk 6y ago
I don't think calling it WSL2 was a mistake. It wasn't something that was good for the users, but it had a very clear benefit for the people working on WSL: calling it WSL2 allowed them to close WSL1 issues en masse as "fixed
214.
by hvdijk 6y ago
My understanding is that Red Hat does allow redistribution so long as you do not infringe on its trademarks. Given that no version of the GPL ever granted trademark rights, this is not an additional restriction, so this is fine.
215.
by hvdijk 6y ago
Okay, so who made that edit? Was it someone in a position to speak in an official capacity?
216.
by hvdijk 6y ago
See Bruce Perens's explanation: < https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-c... >. The short story: adding a penalty to an action that the GPL allows is a restriction of that action
217.
by hvdijk 6y ago
For the UK, basic rules that cover residency for most are listed at < https://www.gov.uk/tax-foreign-income/residence >, with a link to the full rules for those not covered by the basic rules.
218.
by hvdijk 6y ago
The whole point of the installation script is that it downloads and installs binaries obtained from a remote server though. You already need to trust the server if you're going to do that, don't you?
219.
by hvdijk 6y ago
Only mildly so. This hides from the server the fact that you are not checking what is received, so prevents the server from adapting its results based on that, but still allows a server to just unconditionally serve a malicious script. The
220.
by hvdijk 6y ago
Agreed. There is no blanket ban on cookies without permission. A justification is required, and consent is one of the possible justifications, but not the only one.
221.
by hvdijk 6y ago
A small correction: > There, we are installing per-user packages because yes, NixOS supports that, any user can have its own packages that others users can’t access. Other users can access those packages if they want to. Those packages w
222.
by hvdijk 6y ago
They don't. The comment was on labelling. There is nothing in the presentation of unsigned commits to indicate that they are unsigned. The presentation is indistinguishable from that of a hypothetical GitHub that never shows commit sig
223.
by hvdijk 6y ago
An extra one: addresses won't look like dates. The typical way of writing my address starts in the format 1/2 X Street to indicate house number and flat number. Some text processor altered this to the format 1 February X Street. N
224.
by hvdijk 6y ago
It is a security issue if the presence of a commit or tree in a repo is supposed to be enough to get GitHub to nuke the repo, as this then allows malicious users to convince GitHub to nuke any repo they like, but GitHub can instead deal wit
225.
by hvdijk 6y ago
The conclusion favours quantity over quality, which is a wrong conclusion in my opinion. > Women who self-identified as “cat people” were more inclined to view the men pictured with cats as more dateable or say they had no preference. So
226.
by hvdijk 6y ago
> That's a very common misconception of private copy; the existence of the private copy tax is not excusing copyright violation. You are wrongly assuming that a copyright violation has taken place. If a country's laws say it&#x
227.
by hvdijk 6y ago
I haven't. I'm glad notsuoh posted the link.
228.
by hvdijk 6y ago
Builtins are functions that are built into the compiler rather than (or in addition to) being provided as part of any library. That is why they are called builtins. A bug in their implementation is a compiler bug, not a library bug.
229.
by hvdijk 6y ago
> There is no scenario where non-technical users boot into a malignant OS. According to the report there is, and I believe the report is correct, when the "malignant OS" is not actually a full OS, but rather a rootkit. This roo
230.
by hvdijk 6y ago
Are you aware that given int a[3];, (&a+1) and (a+3) denote the same address? If you are, how can that possibly work if as you suggest, &a and a are indistinguishable to the compiler, that they are both seen as a pointer to int?
231.
by hvdijk 6y ago
I didn't mean compound literals, I do not really see how they change things here, I meant that there are a few cases where arrays don't decay to pointers, and supporting those requires compilers to make arrays a part of the type s
232.
by hvdijk 6y ago
That's just not true, there are array expressions, and arrays are part of the type system. I give him more credit than that. (The "you can't copy them" is technically untrue as well but that is just because of sloppy wor
233.
by hvdijk 6y ago
It would help if you define what you mean by "object". This term has a definition in the C standard by which arrays are unquestionably objects. It is true that you cannot pass or return them by value, but that does not mean they a
234.
by hvdijk 6y ago
You are correct. This is briefly mentioned on https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/chist.html : > While [the first edition of K&R] foreshadowed the newer approach to structures, only after it was publi
235.
by hvdijk 6y ago
I do not know about the rest of Europe but in the Netherlands, EULAs can be legally binding. That this means users have a lot of reading to do is true but not relevant. Source (in Dutch): https://blog.iusmentis.com/2008&#x2F
236.
by hvdijk 6y ago
It should be that alt="" means the author specified that the image is purely decorational, missing alt means the author did not specify anything. Do screen readers really say "image" when presented with alt=""?
237.
by hvdijk 6y ago
Yup, phrased like that it's about right and a legitimate gripe. The limits in C90 were even worse. There are still a few projects around that use the requirement to treat more characters as significant in internal names to work around
238.
by hvdijk 6y ago
This is not true. It requires compilers to support at least 31 significant initial characters in external names, 63 otherwise (in C99), but beyond that it is a quality of implementation issue and implementations are explicitly encouraged di
239.
by hvdijk 6y ago
The question you responded to was: > Most of religions forbid people to be naked / see other people naked? Please, list some of them, as I'm having a hard time finding which ones do this. You decided to respond with a point abo
240.
by hvdijk 6y ago
You are conflating nudity and porn when they are two different things, and as far as nudity is concerned, focusing only on whether it is okay according to Christianity to be naked, rather than the other question more relevant to this story,

More ›