• 2 Posts
  • 31 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: May 31st, 2023

help-circle




  • “Can’t share item,” was the header. “You cannot share this item because it has been flagged as inappropriate,” read the body text.

    FAFO.

    We’ve been fanfaring for a decade and a fucking half for people not to see “the cloud” as a miracle solution, and to use it carefully. We’ve been warning that it is a blatant invitation to vendor lock in, that it is singlehandedly creating oligopolies, and that exactly this would happen.

    Did people listen? No. Did they aggressively confront (or passive-aggressively ostracise) us? You bet your bottom dollar they did.

    And now? Now they come around with surprised_pika.gif faces and whine to whoever listens that they are victims, and that they couldn’t “possibly have seen this coming”.

    No. They are enablers of abusers, they themselves abused anyone with even a modicum of common sense, and they brought this upon themselves a thousand times over.

    FAFO. And at this point, reading such story fills me with the most powerful schadenfreude I have ever experienced.

    "Well well well if it isn't the consequences of my own actions" meme




  • 7heo@lemmy.mltoPrivacy@lemmy.mlYoutube is now unusable without a frontend
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    This is the way. And I might add, Unix desktop. Let’s not start bikeshedding between FOSS Unix distributions out of dogmatic reasons (I’m sure you didn’t mean to specifically single out “Linux” here, but I wish we would stop opposing “Linux” and other Unixes like BSD, Illumos, etc).

    The point is, voting with your data for software that is defending your interests, and respecting your rights.

    Edit: Dang, I didn’t expect to get so much slack for “Unix as opposed to Unix-Like”. I absolutely meant “Unix-Like”, but my point is that it shouldn’t matter. Most software is trying to be compatible, these days, and Linux isn’t (in spite of all that marketing material) an OS. It is a kernel. So semantics for semantics, can it even be compared to something it is not? I merely tried to be inclusive.







  • 7heo@lemmy.mltoLinux@lemmy.mlWhat distro should I use on my potato?
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Note: this comment is long, because it is important and the idea that “systemd is always better, no matter the situation” is absolutely dangerous for the entire FOSS ecosystem: both diversity and rationality are essential.

    Systemd can get more efficient than running hundreds of poorly integrated scripts

    In theory yes. In practice, systemd is a huge monolithic single-point-of-failure system, with several bottlenecks and reinventing-the-wheel galore. And openrc is a far cry from “hundreds of poorly integrated scripts”.

    I think it is crucial we stop having dogmatic “arguments” with argumentum ad populum or arguments of authority, or we will end up recreating a Microsoft-like environment in free software.

    Let’s stop trying to shoehorn popular solutions into ill suited use cases, just because they are used elsewhere with different limitations.

    Systemd might make sense for most people on desktop targets (CPUs with several cores, and several GB of RAM), because convenience and comfort (which systemd excels at, let’s be honest) but as we approach “embedded” targets, simpler and smaller is always better.

    And no matter how much optimisation you cram into the bigger software, it will just not perform like the simpler software, especially with limited resources.

    Now, I take OpenRC as an example here, because it is AFAIR the default in devuan, but it also supports runit, sinit, s6 and shepherd.

    And using s6, you just can’t say “systemd is flat out better in all cases”, that would be simply stupid.





  • https://simplex.chat/blog/20240314-simplex-chat-v5-6-quantum-resistance-signal-double-ratchet-algorithm.html

    messenger-comparison

    ¹ Repudiation in SimpleX Chat will include client-server protocol from v5.7 or v5.8. Currently it is implemented but not enabled yet, as its support requires releasing the relay protocol that breaks backward compatibility.

    ² Post-quantum cryptography is available in beta version, as opt-in only for direct conversations. See below how it will be rolled-out further.

    Some columns are marked with a yellow checkmark:

    • when messages are padded, but not to a fixed size.
    • when repudiation does not include client-server connection. In case of Cwtch it appears that the presence of cryptographic signatures compromises repudiation (deniability), but it needs to be clarified.
    • when 2-factor key exchange is optional (via security code verification).
    • when post-quantum cryptography is only added to the initial key agreement and does not protect break-in recovery.