temac

36 ms·

361.
by temac 6y ago
> Still waiting for KWin to support adaptive sync in the Wayland session I'm still horrified by the coupling with each WM or DE that need to reimplement (or use a lib, but that's as interesting as noting that you could reimplem
362.
by temac 6y ago
I agree with that. Both the ergonomics and the quality of implementation of git submodules are currently atrocious. Special mention if you try to mix them with worktrees. I think there is a small possibility that they will become usable in
363.
by temac 6y ago
> It seems pretty well established that making secure software is impossible. Time to pivot to designing software systems that are tolerant of inevitable security breaches. There are variations on this theme. An under studied and under u
364.
by temac 6y ago
Then why do the T&C contain such garbage, and why do people "accept" them (the answer to the last question being that most probably don't read them... well that strategy has its limits, for both parties apparently...)
365.
by temac 6y ago
Morally, to each their own. But legally it certainly depends. In France you can't for private conversations, for example. I don't know if this one would qualify.
366.
by temac 6y ago
The license is free software and it would be suicide for TDF to switch the whole project to proprietary software. Therefore companies are in the clear and will likely remain so for a long time if not forever.
367.
by temac 6y ago
Computers are semi cheap but this is still quite crazy to require employees to come with their own tools to be able to work. I'm happy to live in a country were employers have an obligation to provide that.
368.
by temac 6y ago
At what point will there be a third layer of ultra private stock market?
369.
by temac 6y ago
cmd is rewritten. Most of DOS was in assembly language. Most of NT is not. At one point cmd maybe contained some straightforward translation to C of some pieces of assembly, but I'm not sure (I'm sure it was a mess though; it ma
370.
by temac 6y ago
POSIX is full of aspects that all OS provide greater guarantees or in some cases even deviates. It makes no sense to gratuitously / carelessly remove some of those guarantees and ask the world to fix their "obviously" broken
371.
by temac 6y ago
It is curious they even released that in this state where all the comments are stripped. I would not really consider it free software in this current state (at least this is probably not GPL compatible, because this is not the "source
372.
by temac 6y ago
> Should a thread be frozen for an undetermined amount of time while an antivirus does the check? It certainly does on other OSes and on previous versions of this one? Do you really want to rewrite all existing software because it would
373.
by temac 6y ago
Making open() returning EINTR possible on regular FS is not really cleaning up bad interfaces. Is there even a precedent on any Unix for that behavior?
374.
by temac 6y ago
Of course you can, it would not be open source / free software otherwise. (Yes, some people are attempting to redefine "open source" to other meanings, but gitlab does no such thing and Open Source GitLab is truly Open Source
375.
by temac 6y ago
> If you are running a commercial business on top of your open-source solution, it is paramount that you own the product's full IP. That sentence is even completely absurd. Suppose you ship a product/deploy a service that inclu
376.
by temac 6y ago
For software the overwhelming consensus is the OSI definition (extremely close to the FSF def, extremely close to what is applied as criteria by various distro, etc.) You may want to write "Open Source" to be sure it is not conf
377.
by temac 6y ago
I don't know if there were literal nazi flags, but there certainly were literal nazi clothes, e.g. https://images.jpost.com/image/upload/f_auto,fl_lossy/t_JD_A...
378.
by temac 6y ago
You don't negitiate contracts about OS promising backward compat. Not even MS, which has a quite good backward compat story for windows, does that. Plus pro apps are often specified and tested to run on a specific OS version.
379.
by temac 6y ago
Apple does not really care about software using unsupported resources. They don't even care much about backward compat for supported ones... With the level of vertical integration they have now it is unlikely they will ever start to
380.
by temac 6y ago
How is respecting the licence of software you use an accident and a problem? The managers who believe that are completely insane. Even the market segmentation theory: you can not just sell perfectly capable hardware but artificially limited
381.
by temac 6y ago
Given this is broken over and over again in successives AMD chips, this is actually a little bit likely to be a backdoor. People will e.g. generate keys with broken rdrand, and AMD will later fix it with plausible deniability, just saying &
382.
by temac 6y ago
You want to protect against multiprocessor attacks through MESI. At which point I just have no idea of what to do purely in hardware. The best system design change IMO would be to tag at programming language level (to systematize the introd
383.
by temac 6y ago
Digital copyright questions have nothing to do with counterfeing...
384.
by temac 6y ago
On existing hardware it is mostly useless from a security point of view, but if you design new hardware it is way simpler to have per device physical base+lenght limits than a full featured IOMMU. This is to be restricted to somehow light e
385.
by temac 6y ago
Because if you discover how to fix Spectre completely, that would make (specialized) news. Given common high perf microarchitectures, that's quasi-impossible. You can use somewhat efficient mitigations though.
386.
by temac 6y ago
> A naive model might only consider memory accesses and might assume accessing an adjacent element is free. Really depends on the level of naivety and the definition of "free". It would be less insane to write that: accessing a
387.
by temac 6y ago
It is not 4 times faster than an Intel core, though...
388.
by temac 6y ago
Note that the price is mostly due to market segmentation, in your case most of it by the laptop vendor (of course some for Intel, but not that much compared to the laptop vendor) Xeon with ECC are not that overpriced compared with simil
389.
by temac 6y ago
In "theory" it needs ECC because you must also protect the link between the CPU and the RAM. So with ECC fully in DRAM but no protection on the bus, you risk some errors during the transfer. However maybe this kind of errors are r
390.
by temac 6y ago
Intel has some recent patents on that.

More ›