rian

20 ms·

31.
by rian 12y ago
Just curious, how would you describe what most people usually mean by "callbacks"? I've always considered function arguments to functions like qsort() as callbacks, and from my interpretation of Wikipedia it seems to agree. N
32.
by rian 12y ago
Maybe inherently was the wrong word. Though you can imagine a logger API that was like this: typedef enum { CONSOLE_LOGGER, DATABASE_LOGGER, /* etc. */ } LoggerType; void add_logger(LoggerTyp
33.
by rian 12y ago
Yes, the core issue in the database logger example is that it's a circular dependency. The point of the article is that callback-based APIs like this obscure the actual problems (like circular dependencies). You're right that cons
34.
by rian 12y ago
Yeah problems with mutexes are ultimately the fault of the programmer. The point that the article is trying to make is that because callback APIs don't expose their correctness requirements and because their correctness requirements ar
35.
by rian 12y ago
hehe or "Deadlocks considered harmful."
36.
by rian 12y ago
Pure callbacks aren't universally useless. For instance, the qsort() API can use pure synchronous callbacks effectively: http://linux.die.net/man/3/qsort The article doesn't advocate always requiring pur
37.
Pitfalls of Callback-Based APIs(thelig.ht)
61 points by rian 12y ago|39 comments
38.
by rian 12y ago
This is a good description of the state of hardware engineering but I think the implication is that this will never change is incorrect. Also the main point has little to do with open-source. By these arguments, even engineering practices f
39.
by rian 12y ago
Well, there are still some good reasons to write things in C. For one it's standardized. Two it's ubiquitous. I agree that projects should have a way to verify with 100% accuracy the memory safety of their code. One way to do that
40.
by rian 12y ago
Agree that Rust is not a magical fix-all solution. Rust ensures memory safety and prevents data-races but there are still a whole universe of programming-error-induced vulnerabilities that Rust will happily compile and run. Don't get m
41.
by rian 12y ago
While modernizing and redesigning the Plan 9 UI is a valiant cause, it may not be the most efficient way to accomplish your goals. I'd venture to say that Plan 9 was never meant to be a mainstream OS. It essentially served as a playpen
42.
by rian 12y ago
"Open Source" terminology emphasizes its technical superiority as a development method. "Free Software" terminology emphasizes its ethical necessity to maintain a free society. One is technical, one is political/ide
43.
Creating Digital Chladni Patterns(thelig.ht)
28 points by rian 12y ago|0 comments
44.
by rian 12y ago
If you're looking for actively developed cross platform free software alternative: http://www.getsafe.org/
45.
by rian 12y ago
if you guys think this is cool, check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yonaguni_Monument
46.
by rian 12y ago
Unfortunately, any tiny edit within your TrueCrypt will cause Dropbox to re-read and re-hash the entire volume, and that can take a long time and drain a lot of battery. Safe fits more naturally with Dropbox.
47.
by rian 12y ago
For the WebDAV RAMDisk, Safe will not use more than 1/5 of your commit so you're limited by that.
48.
by rian 12y ago
Currently yes, but I've gotten a lot of the same feedback and I'll make it optional in the next release (within the week :) Follow us on Twitter ( http://twitter.com/safe_app ) or GitHub ( http://github.co
49.
by rian 12y ago
Hi! Author of Safe here. This is explained here: http://www.getsafe.org/about#howissafedifferentfromtruecrypt . Here is a quick summary: 1. You can use your existing EncFS encrypted data on Mac/Windows. 2. 1:1 File encr
50.
by rian 12y ago
It can be. We want to move away from IV-based encryption primitives to tweak-based primitives for each individual file. This is just so more people understand how it works, especially since now XTS is a recommended standard. Right now we us
51.
by rian 12y ago
You're correct. If you want plausible deniability, you should definitely use TrueCrypt. Safe was not meant for this. Safe is mainly for making it difficult for casual snoopers to view your data. For instance, if your computer or extern
52.
by rian 12y ago
thanks for the feedback! i don't disagree with you. i designed the splash page to be very sparse because i wanted to minimize distractions and make it simple to just get started using the app. i figure most people don't like readi
53.
by rian 12y ago
Safe might be a better fit if you need to access your data from Windows as well as Mac OS X. Also Safe is open source so you know what it's actually doing. If you don't care about cross-platform or open-source then encrypted spars
54.
by rian 12y ago
we're actually in the process of updating encfs to use XTS. also, that particular audit was done quickly and some of the analyses weren't done considering the threat-model that encfs is designed for (so it makes encfs look worse t
55.
by rian 12y ago
it's free software, more info can be found here: http://www.getsafe.org/about
56.
Safe: Free Easy File System Encryption(getsafe.org)
20 points by rian 12y ago|34 comments
57.
Free Hacker Music(archive.org)
1 points by rian 12y ago|0 comments
58.
by rian 13y ago
i also wrote one, check it out http://rianhunter.github.io/threes-solver
59.
Interactive Threes Solver(rianhunter.github.io)
4 points by rian 13y ago|0 comments
60.
C++ compilers can manipulate and create strings at compile time(gist.github.com)
1 points by rian 13y ago|0 comments

More ›