I know it's not the sub for it however some people might like to know: the open source tool Rufus, when noticing that you're creating a Win11 USB, will by default offer to patch it to remove the TPM requirement and other restrictions. So now I have W11 happily running on an "unsupported" machine. Yes, I did have Linux on it previously but something has regressed in the kernel in the last year or two and it often freezes on wake, which is well beyond my care factor to help debug.
Do you think there's a way for this to scale to larger projects like Servo? Or will it only work for a few people collaborating?
This is a good point. I assumed here that FS advocates will be basically opposed to a technology that serves to incorporate their code into software that does not provide the fundamental freedoms to end users, more than those who license their work permissively. But yes you could imagine an FS advocate who is quite happy to use the tech themselves and churn out code with GPL attached.
Fossil has a lot of features and config knobs.
Why is this LLM trying to teach me about acyclic graphs in the middle of an article about Linux platform support?
AFAICT this is super mundane. Devs added some checks that when run will drop .hdrtest files all over the source tree when you do a normal build. This is really unclean and has practical ramifications even if you gitignore them as Linus points out. Pretty much any lead developer would be upset if someone tried to merge something like this in a software project, and it has essentially nothing to do with the particular drivers or code functionality.
Ah yes, so straightforward.
I'm confident that if the host is compromised I'm screwed regardless.
I have to assume that we're in this situation because because the app does not exist in our distro's repo (or homebrew or whatever else). So how do you go about this verification? You need a trusted public key, right? You wouldn't happen to be downloading that from the same website that you're worried might be sending you compromised scripts or binaries? You wouldn't happen to be downloading the key from a public keyserver and assuming it belongs to the person whose name is on it?
This is such a ridiculously high bar to avert a "security nightmare". Regular users will be better off ignoring such esoteric suggestions and just looking for lots of stars on GitHub.
So tell me: if I download and run a bash script over https, or a .deb file over https and then install it, why is the former a "security nightmare" and the latter not?
The security concerns are often overblown. The bigger problem for me is I don't know what kind of mess it's going to make or whether I can undo it. If it's a .deb or even a tarball to extract in /usr/local then I know how to uninstall.
I will still use them sometimes but for things I know and understand - e.g. rustup will put things in ~/.rustup and update the PATH in my shell profile and because I know that's what it does I'm happy to use the automation on a new system.
13
There is no mystery over who wrote the Blue Screen of Death, despite what some may want you to believe
(devblogs.microsoft.com)
view more: next ›
It also has the best promotional video I've ever seen for a terminal emulator: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gw0rXPMMPE