teacup50

12 ms·

91.
by teacup50 10y ago
No, I'm talking about the Operating System vs. Applications. Drawing the line at the kernel syscall ABI is arbitrary; no other major operating system other than Linux does so. Consider how difficult it is to ship 3rd-party applications
92.
by teacup50 10y ago
> User vs base is artificial. No. It's not. If nginx releases an update, do you also need to update your OS? No, because the user dependency graph isn't shared with the base OS. If you update your OS, do you also need to upda
93.
by teacup50 10y ago
You can't "freely redistribute" it though. You have to comply with the viral decidedly non-freeing provisions.
94.
by teacup50 10y ago
A consistently designed well-documented system is probably easier to use, all else being equal.
95.
by teacup50 10y ago
This is a major flaw of C++'s ABI design, unfortunately, and one reason why we see so few supported ABI-stable C++ libraries shipped with major platforms. Most people just have to incorporate their C++ dependencies directly instead, as
96.
by teacup50 10y ago
> If rebuilding the world from source is an option, changing the ABI is an option. It's an option ... but not a very good one. It tends to create an unstable environment that requires a centralized organization just to keep it wor
97.
by teacup50 10y ago
Do they run your purchased iOS software? Play your purchased iTunes movies locked with Fairplay DRM? Read your purchased iBooks? Read your personal documents, passwords, and data locked into iCloud? Synchronize with your other Apple iCloud-
98.
by teacup50 10y ago
Yes. It's quite similar to what stops people from simply moving to a new city to escape a local monopoly.
99.
by teacup50 10y ago
No, we really do. You simply punted on addressing what "multiple vendors" means given platform lock-in, and how that relates to traditional geographic definitions of a market. The geographic model is based on the obvious notion th
100.
by teacup50 10y ago
We really need to revisit the purely geographic definition of a "market" when it comes to antitrust law in a digital age.
101.
by teacup50 10y ago
Open source projects that are not GPL'd cannot adopt the code; it's meant to be linked into the kernel, and so distribution will trigger the viral licensing clause covering the entirety of the kernel. For example, there are a myri
102.
by teacup50 10y ago
> OpenVPN uses TLS. Granted, but this should generally be behind a shared secret HMAC, according to best practices, limiting the scope to those with the key in hand. > The whole point of WireGuard is to shake off that complex bagga
103.
by teacup50 10y ago
What do you want me to say? I'd think it ought to be self-evident that greater risks exist when operating in a single shared memory space at ring 0. If nothing else, the trampoline to privilege is already complete; very little stands b
104.
by teacup50 10y ago
> As a "security professional", I kind of don't care whether this is in-kernel or not. As a "kernel professional", I'm laughing incredulously at this. A lot.
105.
by teacup50 10y ago
GPLv2 doesn't work for in-kernel code, or for code that could be used as a library.
106.
by teacup50 10y ago
Any chance of switching to a non-GPLv2 license? Broad adoption would be far more likely.
107.
by teacup50 10y ago
Only if you believe type theory and typed programming languages are outdated. I'm not impressed with NoSQL; they have no answer to the limitations of relational theory beyond simply abandoning formalism entirely.
108.
by teacup50 10y ago
I find the dividing line in formalism; we can always find similarities with language-level features from OO, but OO is by definition an informal set of ideas about how programming is best done and understood, rooted deeply in empiricism, no
109.
by teacup50 10y ago
Data encapsulation (e.g. via ADTs) does not equal "OO".
110.
by teacup50 10y ago
Haskell doesn't have OO, so it can hardly be an ORM. The library in question is modeling relational theory at the language/type level. That's not remotely like an ORM.
111.
by teacup50 10y ago
> If you're not using an ORM, then you ultimately end up writing one. Only if you assume that Object Relational Mapping is the only way to express type checked database access at the application layer. ORMs are broken by design;
112.
by teacup50 10y ago
Or, Apple has really gone downhill since the departure of John Siracusa.
113.
by teacup50 10y ago
Genuine question since I haven't read the SGX docs in detail; What's to stop us from implementing a broken SGX via trap-and-emulate?
114.
by teacup50 10y ago
There's a difference between something being "offensive" because it's incorrect , and being "incorrect" because it's offensive . Our job is to be correct. If we avoid offense in the process, great.
115.
by teacup50 10y ago
No. I'm not obligated to subscribe to your politics, and I won't coerce or bully others, either. Programmers are not the personal army of any social cause. I work hard to accurately model engineering problems, and apply consiste
116.
by teacup50 10y ago
DRM claws back property rights; breaking it is illegal, regardless of whether its protecting something that you would otherwise have the legal right to do. I call bullshit. Up, down, right, left and center. So much bullshit.
117.
by teacup50 10y ago
Instead, you get European regulations that ban you locally.
118.
by teacup50 10y ago
> What's wrong with that? The undermining of private property rights comes to mind.
119.
by teacup50 10y ago
... and Emacs really is an IDE; the distinction between it and GUI IDEs has more to do with user interface than any limitation of Emacs. e.g. live libclang-based code completion for Emacs: https://github.com/Sarcasm/iro
120.
by teacup50 10y ago
A linked list is so simple that you should know how to implement one off the top of your head. It's literally: struct list_node { struct list_node *next; ... }; There, you know how linked lists work :)

More ›