TechNom (nobody)

Gitlab is very complex and a heavy resource hog. You probably don’t need it. Most small to medium enterprises can comfortably host their projects on lightweight forgejo or gitea (speaking from experience). They even have functionality similar to github actions. If you need anything more complex, you are better off integrating another self hosted external service to the mix.

Is it legal? There may be alternatives with plausible deniability.

Crowdstrike exists for Linux too. In fact, it apparently crashed RHEL and Debian a few months back. That didn’t get so much attention.

Falcon seems to be a cross between an antivirus and an intrusion detection system (IDS). There are many antiviruses on Linux, but only one FOSS AV is popular - ClamAV. As for IDS, snort is an example.

But in the true sense, Falcon is much more than just an AV and IDS. It’s a way to detect breaches and report it back to CrowdStrike’s threat detection and analysis teams. I don’t think there exists a proper alternative even in the commercial sector.

Google has discovered that FOSS software under their full control is better than pure proprietary software for monopoly abuse and rent seeking. With FOSS software, they enjoy the automatic popularity that they otherwise would have had to market very hard for. At the same time, none of Google’s free software is truly free. Google devs regularly neglect and reject overwhelming user requirements (jpegxl in chrome is probably the best example of this) and choose designs that clearly favor the company monetarily. It isn’t even practical for normal people to fork their projects.

Google often uses their ‘FOSS’ projects to twist open standards or the market to their advantage. Android and Chrome are very significant players in this regard. Using Chrome, Google even managed to make the W3C standard too complicated for others to make alternative browsers easily. Google has similar ambitions in the multimedia market. They want to replace the monopolistic media formats with quasi-monopolistic formats like webp and av1 instead of truly open ones like jpegxl.

It’s still possible on almost any distro with pyenv or asdf-vm.

Nice idea!

In addition, we could have an allowlist for honest bots (like search crawlers).

We need three four things:

1. A way to poison the data that will throw off the training without causing perceptible difference to humans. As I remember it, many image AIs were sensitive to a peculiar noise that was imperceptible to humans.
2. A skiplist of AI data stealers, so that their IPs/domains can be blocked in bulk.
3. Eventually, the above technique will become useless as AI data stealers will start using dynamic IPs and botnets to bypass the skiplists. We’ll need to throttle or block data to visitors based on pattern recognition. For example, if the visitor requests linked pages in rapid succession. Or if the request interval is uniform or pseudo random, instead of genuinely random.
4. If the pattern recognition above is triggered, we could even feed the bots with data from AI models, instead of blocking or throttling. Let the AI eat its own s**t.

The licenses alone are enough to ensure that the opposite happens.

You can uninstall the sudo application and add sudo as an alias for run0 in your shell initialization script. That’s better than them renaming run0 to sudo, because that will prevent people from running the real sudo if they want it.

For anyone looking to learn git, the official book and site are thorough and exceptional. You can even download the eBook for free. While there’s no harm in using other sources to learn git, don’t use them as an alternative to the canonical source.

I wonder if these trillion dollar companies offer support contracts for astroturfing on social media on their behalf. I can’t think of any other way so many people are supporting their sociopathic attitude.

The devs don’t take an issue with the ticket being filed. They’re irritated by one particular reply which sounds like “My million dollar product depends on this bug fix. Please do that for me”. MS isn’t offering a solution. They’re asking for one.

To be fair MS offers an amount for the fix. Most companies just bully the devs instead. However, I don’t think it’s quite fair (though legal) to offer one time payments for a core library that they use.

Those same companies tell you that their products that you paid for don’t belong to you. You are just buying a license to use them. Sadly, this asinine concept is spreading even to hardware markets.

I think it’s fair to ask them to take their own bitter pill. They should also invest without owning.

The hack is still not fully understood and is being analyzed. It doesn’t help that Github suspended everything, including the original maintainer’s account (who is believed to be a victim of social engineering).

Anyway, you will eventually see a post mortem. I’m willing to bet that it’s going to be as phenomenal as the hack itself. The case and its investigation is going to be a classic case study for all security researchers and security-minded users. Anyway, I doubt that the attackers will ever be found. Jia Tan, Jigar Kumar and others are going to remain as ghosts like Satoshi Nakamoto.

They really ought to have version masking like in Gentoo portage.

Peter Thiel is insolent enough to say out loud what these companies practice - ‘competition is for losers’. These quasi-monopolies aren’t here to provide the best value - quite the opposite. They want to kill all competition by any dirty tactic and then use the diminished choice to wring the customers of every penny they have. They want to extract maximum revenue by making sure that their inferior solution is the only option customers have.

This problem isn’t solvable by market regulation alone. The world has enough a*****es around who will climb to the top of successful companies and find ways around the regulations. They’re being as bad as they can, while skirting the limits of what’s illegal. My main gripe is with the engineers, programmers, technicians and all technical creators who enable these scumbags. It’s not hard to see that supporting a proprietary solution amounts to yielding the consumers’ bargaining power to a monopoly. Despite that, they keep making these choices. For example, it’s not uncommon to hear senior engineering managers or technical-lead level employees saying, “I know that Chrome is spyware and I want to quit it. But this works only on Chrome”. I feel like screaming at them that if they’re too incompetent to demand a change at the level they’re at, they’re in the wrong profession.

If you’re a technical creator, your choices matter. It affects a lot more people than you alone. But more often than not, I see such creators surrendering principles in exchange for convenience. They hold as much responsibility as the market-abusers in making the world the way it is now.

Interesting that they started dictating what you can and can’t do with YOUR program! Consumer rights are a joke to these quasi-monopolies.

CUDA is an API to run high performance compute code on Nvidia GPUs. CUDA is proprietary. So CUDA programs run only on Nvidia GPUs. Open alternatives like vulkan compute and opencl aren’t as popular as CUDA.

Translation layers are interface software that allow CUDA programs to run on non-Nvidia GPUs. But creating such layers require a bit of reverse engineering of CUDA programs. But they are prohibiting this now. They want to ensure that all the CUDA programs in the world are limited to using Nvidia GPUs alone - classic vendor lock-in by using EULA.

What’s ironic is that rebases aren’t as hard as many consider it to be. Once you’ve done it a couple of times, you just do it everyday as easily as you commit changes.

I find myself passing copies of values around and things like that, it might be that the compiler just takes care of that,

Rust prefers explicitness over magic. So it does what you tell it and doesn’t just take care of that.

If you’re copying a lot of values around (I.e cloning. Not moving or borrowing), then you’re definitely doing it inefficiently. But you don’t have to worry too much about that. If there are too many difficulties in borrowing, it may be because those borrows are problematic with respect to memory safety. In such cases, sacrificing performance through cloning may be an acceptable compromise to preserve memory safety. In the end, you end up with the right balance of performance (through borrowing) and safety (through cloning). That balance is hard to achieve in C/C++ (lacking in safety) or in GC languages (lacking in performance).

If that’s the friction you’re facing in Rust, then I would say that you’re already in a good position and you’re just trying too hard.