[-] cmeerw@programming.dev 15 points 1 month ago

at least you could keep their reviews so users could at least know if the app can be trusted.

You mean, don't trust a flatpak uploaded by a random person, but if there are enough fake reviews, it can be trusted?

1
submitted 9 months ago by cmeerw@programming.dev to c/cpp@programming.dev
[-] cmeerw@programming.dev 59 points 9 months ago

"secure alternative"? Others are not secure?

[-] cmeerw@programming.dev 17 points 10 months ago

Pretty much anything that's only available via an app store. The difference with web apps is that I can also use them on a laptop/PC and I have a bit more control about tracking (by using ad/tracking blockers).

[-] cmeerw@programming.dev 25 points 10 months ago

not being forced to have an Android or Apple smartphone, so more open standards and just Web apps instead of proprietary apps

1
submitted 11 months ago by cmeerw@programming.dev to c/cpp@programming.dev
1
cppfront: Autumn update (herbsutter.com)
submitted 11 months ago by cmeerw@programming.dev to c/cpp@programming.dev
[-] cmeerw@programming.dev 25 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Did a bit more digging through the mailing list (also looking through the links posted on the HN thread), and to me it looks a bit weird.

OP came up with an initial patch (Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 12:36 PM) that wasn't deemed to be good enough to be merged. Maintainer came up with a different patch (Tue, 7 Jun 2022 00:34:56 +1000) saying "but I wanted to fix it differently". OP then posted a reworked patch (Fri Jun 10 17:15:49 AEST 2022) that looks a lot more similar to the maintainer's patch.

The maintainer's patch and OP's reworked patch look quite similar, but from what I can see from the mailing list, the maintainer actually came up with that approach, and OP didn't then credit the maintainer in his reworked patch. @kairos@programming.dev can you please clarify, what am I missing?

[-] cmeerw@programming.dev 20 points 11 months ago

I am not really seeing any toxic behaviour here.

OP's patch was largely based on code in ptrace32.c, but that code actually looks quite bad. So maintainer applied a better fix. Maybe ptrace32.c should be updated to use code that's more similar to ptrace-fpu.c now?

[-] cmeerw@programming.dev 21 points 11 months ago

So you have just re-posted an old email to the mailing list just so you can link to it, likely confusing everyone on that mailing list.

[-] cmeerw@programming.dev 15 points 1 year ago

and its linking ability is a huge simplifier for long term planning.

What long term planning? Who is going to come up with that plan? Will everyone agree to that plan? Who will be paying for the resources to work on that plan?

Combined with a Kanban board for tracking, progress of tickets. You remove a ton of pain.

I am not seeing how that would help. What are you going to do if there is no progress on something? Fire volunteer X because he didn't make progress on ticket Y (as he has no interest in ticket Y)?

[-] cmeerw@programming.dev 15 points 1 year ago

You mean like https://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/jammy/en/man8/snap.8.html

Still better than a random user claiming

This is a massive security vulnerability

with no justification whatsoever.

55
Snapless Ubuntu (programming.dev)
submitted 1 year ago by cmeerw@programming.dev to c/linux@lemmy.ml

Not sure what others are doing to use Ubuntu (23.04) without snaps, but this is what I am doing:

  • for Firefox I found a guide here
  • for chromium I am actually using the Linux Mint packages (which work absolutely fine), and I have just set up a small repository I can add to apt:
deb [arch=amd64 allow-insecure=yes] http://snapless.cmeerw.net victoria upstream
  • this just syncs from Linux Mint and only republishes chromium in the Packages file (with downloads redirected to a Linux Mint mirror). BTW, I am not signing these...

What are others doing?

[-] cmeerw@programming.dev 32 points 1 year ago

Not sure if they have only just added a clarification, but it now says

Notwithstanding the above, Zoom will not use audio, video or chat Customer Content to train our artificial intelligence models without your consent.

[-] cmeerw@programming.dev 18 points 1 year ago

XFS is 29 years old and certainly still in use as well.

[-] cmeerw@programming.dev 15 points 1 year ago

Never rely on being able to delete anything that has been published/posted. If you want privacy, don't post it. Yes, some systems make it easier to delete a post, but you can never rely on it being deleted everywhere (someone could have made a screenshot, etc.).

view more: next ›

cmeerw

joined 1 year ago