• 44 Posts
  • 480 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 15th, 2023

help-circle






  • Yes, the DRM free games is a huge win for preservation. I’m not discounting the value of GOG. But that’s something we had already. My critique was about the focus on Windows only, which is not the best idea if games should be preserved “forever”. Because Windows 11 will be the only supported one soon.

    But any efforts trying to make games work forever is always good. At least they didn’t rule out other OS in the future. While my initial reaction was a bit negative in the nature, because I was very disappointment, I’m still happy they do something about it. It’s even more bitter because they supported Linux in the past… But let’s see how this is going. I don’t want to end this in a negative note. I mean it can only get better with such a goal.





  • At least BlueSky is built on a technology based on open standard protocol and is decentralized. Kind of similar to the goals of Fediverse / Mastodon. So I assume someone else can just create a server and join the network of BlueSky? I don’t know if this is possible. But in reality at the moment its controlled by only one big company.

    My hope is that they will one day cooperate with Fediverse, so it becomes read from and write to relationship.


    • Bluesky: 15,128,928
    • Mastodon: 15,499,978

    Source: https://bsky.jazco.dev/stats and https://mastodon.social/@mastodonusercount

    These numbers are to taken with a grain of salt. Mastodon in example can’t count all instances, because not all are federated. Also on both instances we don’t have numbers of active users per day or logged in at the same time. However Bluesky provides statistics beyond just the number of accounts. I’m not saying one is better or has more active users than the other, only that the total number of accounts can be misleading as much as the Megapixels count of your camera.

    Edit: I forgot there is another statistics displaying the number of active users for Mastodon: above 2.5 million users. Also it displays current Mastodon user count less than 10 million. Again either it counts it differently or it does not have access to the same instances as the other account has. Source: https://mastodon-analytics.com/







  • But there is context to it:

    The report on Product Security Bad Practices warns software manufacturers about developing “new product lines for use in **service of critical infrastructure or [national critical functions] **NCFs in a memory-unsafe language (eg, C or C++) where there are readily available alternative memory-safe languages that could be used is dangerous and significantly elevates risk to national security, national economic security, and national public health and safety.”

    It’s for new products that are very important to critical infrastructure and need to be safe as possible. The article writer seem not to be aware of this context:

    Take Rust in Linux, for example. Even with support from Linux’s creator, Linus Torvalds, Rust is moving into Linux at a snail’s pace.

    Because Linux is the biggest software in the entire world and they do lot of stuff their own way. Rust is integrated slowly for future new projects. It makes sense to move in snail pace. The government doesn’t suggest the Linux project to stop using C entirely. The government “recommends” to start new projects in memory safe languages, if it is a critical software. That makes sense to me.

    You see, people who’ve spent years and sometimes decades mastering C don’t want to master the very different Rust. They don’t see the point.

    No, totally wrong. C programmers in Linux do not NEED to learn or master Rust. They just need to cooperate. The problem is, that some C programmers refuse to cooperate with Rust. They just want Rust to disappear. That has nothing to do with mastering the language. They refuse to make changes to their C code, so it can cooperate with Rust code via bindings.

    After all, they can write memory-safe code in C, so why can’t you?

    Nonsense argument, and false too. If that was the case, why do we have memory safe languages? Clearly people make mistake, old and new. Besides Linux is not the only software in the world.

    Converting existing large codebases to memory-safe languages can be an enormous undertaking.

    Nobody says old code should be rewritten in Rust. Neither the government, nor the Rust programmers in Linux suggest that. It’s not about rewriting code in memory-safe languages, its about new projects.

    Either this article is a misrepresentation or misunderstanding. Or I misunderstand the article or government. I don’t know anymore…