tux21b

3 ms·

1.
by tux21b 2y ago
I hate that PeaZip does not support passwords with a quotation mark (") in the UI. I haven't reviewed the code, but I am assuming that they are neither passing the password via a variable (linked library) nor via an execve call (l
2.
by tux21b 7y ago
Sure, large companies can easily run a on-premise coordination server. But large companies usually also have a network department and several other SDN and VPN solutions already. They are probably using highly tuned and standardized ipsec t
3.
by tux21b 7y ago
I guess you can call it that. You can start it on all your devices (e.g. laptop, PC, phone, tablet, Docker containers, etc.) and it will assign a fixed IP to each of them. Using this fixed IP all those devices are able to communicate secure
4.
by tux21b 7y ago
Thanks for the blog post. I am following the project closely since Brad announced working for you. My main concern currently is the coordination server which does not fit the zero trust claim. I know that the traffic between peers is end-to
5.
by tux21b 11y ago
"evil minions" are not yellow. Did you know that? :D
6.
by tux21b 13y ago
The most obvious pattern, a simple for loop and a separate iterator type, is imho missing. Something like "for iter.Next() { fmt.Println(iter.Value()) }" is commonly used in Go and doesn't look that bad either...
7.
by tux21b 13y ago
The easiest way would be to store everything you can on the stack. The Go compiler does a very good job at escape analysis and tries to put everything on the stack that does not escape. Therefore, it's often better to use output parame
8.
by tux21b 13y ago
Go's GC isn't nearly as powerful as any of the many GC implementations for the JVM, but Go's approach is also quite differently. In Go, you can reduce / avoid the garbage that you create. And when the GC turns out to be
9.
by tux21b 13y ago
I was thinking about that too, but since it is not possible to change existing items and the computation of those items must be re-entrant (groupcache just tries to avoid duplicate computations but does not guarantee it), there seems to be
10.
by tux21b 13y ago
I was just criticizing the publishing skills of some people... The problem itself is unfortunate and I am personally not a huge fan of the "no API changes" philosophy participated by the Go team. I can understand the reasons behin
11.
by tux21b 13y ago
Yes, Roger Peppe, one of the Go contributors, had exactly the same issue, but luckily Brad and Russ, two core devs, were able to solve the mystery immediately and updated the documentation. It's now quite funny to read a blog post from