rezonant

36 ms·

511.
by rezonant 3y ago
I always though webOS didn't actually use the web stack for its applications but after some reading, I guess it does, though you can also make apps using Qt.
512.
by rezonant 3y ago
Very forward thinking, considering two OSes have been built in that image since, one which is quite successful (ChromeOS, with the other being Mozilla's Firefox OS). And modern PWAs is the same concept, just more in the presentational
513.
by rezonant 3y ago
It's probably more satire than anything else.
514.
by rezonant 3y ago
> But as you can see elsewhere, we shouldn't pipe streams into anything. Firstly, I'll assume you mean untrusted streams since if you didn't mean that, we might as well throw out UNIX entirely. Even given that caveat tho
515.
by rezonant 3y ago
That part was still present: You could still add a web app to your home screen. It was that it didn't run as a PWA, with the additional features PWAs get.
516.
by rezonant 3y ago
Fantastic. That's one giant step backwards not taken for the web platform.
517.
by rezonant 3y ago
Oof, I kind of suspected this might be the case.
518.
by rezonant 3y ago
> after the QA confirms the fix in 2028. Dang, your QA team is fast.
519.
by rezonant 3y ago
There was no argument here, only a question. And it's a fair question to ask for the purposes of discussion. You're right, piping to sh is definitely a risk, and we should do better as a community, and not make users normalized to
520.
by rezonant 3y ago
I agree that it's a risk to pipe to sh but that's not what we're doing here, and I'd hope that most of the people aren't saying there's no difference between piping to man and piping to sh.
521.
by rezonant 3y ago
This is extremely specifically is about detecting that Bash is pulling on the stream, by using it's line by line interpretation to do a timing attack. It's not clear there's a timing difference between pushing the stream to
522.
by rezonant 3y ago
This is why I spin up a VM whenever I want to look at an image. The risk is too great. Even text files, after all we never know if there's a zero day in the UTF-8 decoder. Better safe than sorry. Wait a minute I just realized there cou
523.
by rezonant 3y ago
The top reply to that comment rightfully points out that this applies to your shell specifically. This isn't a concern for formats that don't have executable code (and I assume roff doesn't, right?) You might say, yes, but it
524.
by rezonant 3y ago
On the other hand, it's Docker, so you know every blog will use their own base image.
525.
by rezonant 3y ago
It is a single one-core server, and I believe it's pretty old.
526.
by rezonant 3y ago
It's still just one old server. Which itself is impressive, but with the search indexing changes maybe not enough anymore?
527.
by rezonant 3y ago
Oh, sorry I missed it.
528.
by rezonant 3y ago
Yes this seems to be right, although in short order the resulting firm was once again branded AT&T.
529.
by rezonant 3y ago
Oh, it was Cingular at announcement and AT&T at launch. Interestingly, > Cingular chief executive Stan Sigman signed a secretive deal with Apple in 2005 before seeing any designs or prototypes of the phone. Other carriers had been sc
530.
by rezonant 3y ago
All we have on what this car was supposed to be was rumors, but the rumors seemed pretty consistent, that this was going to be a self driving car. I do agree that there's a huge amount of specialization for cars that doesn't overl
531.
by rezonant 3y ago
And yet we're fine having the draconic business model of phone carriers from the 90s and early aughts carried into the modern day, just wielded by Apple instead of AT&T. Computers run software the user asks for, phones run the soft
532.
by rezonant 3y ago
And further, buying your kid an iPod Touch at the time served the same purpose (for Apple) as buying your kid an iPad today. It gets them into Apple's products space, develops brand affinity and trust, and gets them familiar with iOS s
533.
by rezonant 3y ago
I see no reason Apple couldn't tell their customers that. Wouldn't surprise me in the least.
534.
by rezonant 3y ago
I'm not sure if the GP here was edited to be substantially different, because your response doesn't match what they are saying. AT&T wasn't desperate, and I'm sure Jobs would have preferred to skip on exclusivity, si
535.
by rezonant 3y ago
> Are there really features that Apple is going to bake into their cars to ensure it only really gets those features for Apple users? Uh yes, of course. I would be highly surprised if there weren't. That's Apple's MO.
536.
by rezonant 3y ago
> The carrier thing was true, but they could have launched outside the US. Instead they found a carrier desperate enough. The carrier the iPhone launched with in the US was AT&T. While they were neck in neck with Verizon at the time,
537.
by rezonant 3y ago
> has anyone cared about net income in decades? Uh, you mean net income also known as "net profit"? So your question is effectively "has anyone cared about profit in decades?" Well... yes
538.
by rezonant 3y ago
I imagine they are actually referring to the internal competition Jobs orchestrated leading up to the introduction of the iPhone, which I've never heard described as "disastrous" though plenty of people's feelings were p
539.
by rezonant 3y ago
https://archive.is/izE1K
540.
by rezonant 3y ago
The argument is pedantic.

More ›