teddyh

12 ms·

301.
by teddyh 9mo ago
“…with Claude Code”
302.
by teddyh 9mo ago
“buggy”
303.
by teddyh 9mo ago
We used to have “SEO spam”, where people would try to create news (and other) articles associated with some word or concept to drown out some scandal associated with that same word or concept. The idea was that people searching on Google f
304.
by teddyh 9mo ago
With two “--force” options, that is essentially equivalent to “echo o > /proc/sysrq-trigger”, isn’t it? I would think that one “--force” would have the actually desired effect.
305.
by teddyh 9mo ago
That is false. If all you want is all subdomains and IP addresses, you can query each enumerated name for A records; you get any NS records (or CNAME records) on that name for free in the answer, and can follow those. ANY queries are not
306.
by teddyh 9mo ago
I agree; I was there, too: < https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30312899 >
307.
by teddyh 9mo ago
Systemd seemd to be moving away from D-Bus and adopting varlink instead.
308.
by teddyh 9mo ago
> The journal grows massively and is unbounded by default. Wrong. By default, the journals aren’t even saved to disk. And if you do configure them to be saved to disk, they are limited by default to 10% of the file system size, and a
309.
by teddyh 9mo ago
> As a website host/maintainer, I am happy that the DNS 'ANY' query has been deprecated. Why? What benefit does this bring you, or what negative consequence would otherwise have resulted for you?
310.
by teddyh 9mo ago
> Surprisingly, Rust, as of now, uses line buffering for both TTYs and non-TTYs. > The FIXME comment shows the Rust team acknowledges that ideally they should check if something is executed in TTYs or not and use LineWriter or BufW
311.
by teddyh 9mo ago
Cloudflare is well known for breaking DNS standards, and also then writing a new RFC to justify their broken behavior, and getting IETF to approve it. (The existence of RFC 8482 is a disgrace to everyone involved.) > To prevent any fut
312.
by teddyh 9mo ago
The problem with long lines was reportedly markedly improved in Emacs 29: Emacs is now capable of editing files with very long lines. The display of long lines has been optimized, and Emacs should no longer choke when a buffer on display c
313.
by teddyh 9mo ago
> This is one of my favorite strips of his: […] Better link: < https://dilbert-viewer.herokuapp.com/1997-01-13 > > Another one was the one where he went to work in Marketing, and they were doing their research
314.
by teddyh 9mo ago
Better link: < https://dilbert-viewer.herokuapp.com/1994-06-03 >
315.
by teddyh 9mo ago
Better links: • < https://dilbert-viewer.herokuapp.com/2001-10-25 > • < https://dilbert-viewer.herokuapp.com/1995-06-24 > • < https://dilbert-viewer.herokuapp.com/1991-01-03 >
316.
by teddyh 9mo ago
Better link: < https://dilbert-viewer.herokuapp.com/1993-11-09 >
317.
by teddyh 9mo ago
Also Gimli.
318.
by teddyh 10mo ago
The first time I heard about eSIM, I assumed it was a scheme to make switching phones and providers hard again, but I had no idea the situation was this dire.
319.
by teddyh 10mo ago
The only alternative suggested by the linked article is giving up email completely in favor of centralized solutions like Signal. My short answer is “no”. My long answer is: < https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4539033
320.
by teddyh 10mo ago
Maybe. Who can and cannot sue is irrelevant to my point. But I seriously doubt that anyone can sue for source code . Someone might sue for damages, and the company might offer to settle by offering source code. But IIUC, no company ca
321.
by teddyh 10mo ago
Section 3 of GPL 2 states that the company must either give the source to the user alongside the product (in which case the user has the source already), or the company must give to the user a written offer of source code. Note that if the
322.
by teddyh 10mo ago
> If that was true, anyone reselling an Android phone could open themselves up to legal liability. That’s only an appeal to ridicule. If those are valid, here’s an opposing one: If this is not true, then any company can violate the
323.
by teddyh 10mo ago
Yes. I did not cover these cases because approximately nobody does that. I mean, the absolutely simplest, and cheapest, way for companies to comply with the GPL is to ship the source code together with the software. Stick it in a zip fi
324.
by teddyh 10mo ago
> But GPL is a contract Not according to the original reasoning by its creators, but opinions differ wildly. However, this is irrelevant to the point; the written offer , which is separate from the GPL, is what is failing to be honor
325.
by teddyh 10mo ago
Rather crucially, the license itself does not say that you have the right to the source code. It is only the separate written offer which gives you that right. If you did not receive such an offer, you don’t have any right to it. But t
326.
by teddyh 10mo ago
If you carefully read what I wrote, you will notice that I never claimed otherwise. Whether or not third parties have standing to sue on a GPL violation is immaterial to my point, none of which is “an open question”.
327.
by teddyh 10mo ago
As far as I understand it, Richard Stallman has gotten his view about linking from FSF’s lawyers, who has advised the FSF about what does and does not count as a “derived work”, in the sense of US copyright law. If you want to argue that th
328.
by teddyh 10mo ago
That section (and similar in section 6d) is not about the written offer of source code. The written offer of source code is instead covered in section 6c.
329.
by teddyh 10mo ago
> 7 out 10 times, the person on the other end was angry because they assumed the GPL entitled them to all of our source code and they were disappointed when they only found GPL code in the tarball. Well, if your non-GPL code was direct
330.
by teddyh 10mo ago
I don’t think so; I can’t recall any support for such a connection between the written offer and the GPL itself written into the GPL license text.

More ›