Milpotel
Milpotel on Hacker News
> What do early flexbox implementations (something like 12-15 years ago?)
It shows that a) new technologies may add value and also that browsers constantly fix bugs due to complex or underspecified standards. It was just an example, go through the issues lists and you find a lot more.
> not the ones who jump to use new browser features too quickly
That's reasonable but there is a point where support just should be dropped. Don't support IE 5 for ages just because someone is too scared to update. Let them fix their technical debt. Encouraging people to access the internet with insecure software is not acceptable. Btw. that was the argument you completely ignored in your reply.
> can't afford ... iPhone
Seems to be a bad decision from the beginning.
> And developers really should know better than to fall for the marketing nonsense that anything more than 5 minutes old is "insecure".
Where have you been the last decades? Pick an arbitrary browser and go through their CVE list, e.g.: https://app.opencve.io/cve/?product=safari&vendor=apple
> What bugs?
I guess at that point I have to assume you have no idea about front-end development. Otherwise you would know what a pain in the ass old browsers with their inconsistencies are (e.g. remember the struggle with the early flexbox implementations?).
> It's such a shame the fashion is the other way for so many web developers, largely the younger and less experienced ones.
I don’t care about what’s trendy, but using outdated, insecure browsers to surf the web is just plain stupid. Even more, expecting developers to waste time working around all the bugs in those old browsers is just insane. I do the opposite: as soon as a browser reaches EOL I drop the support. Don't encourage lazy admins and bad habits.
> None of them work on older browser
There are older browsers which still get security patches?
Why? Is it some form of Stockholm syndrome?
Same here. I don't use flatpaks, only a single electron app (Obsidian) and can't even name 5.
> If you just want something stable and boring, Linux is just not it.
What? I get the other arguments but I use Linux because it's stable and boring. I don't want the hassle of updates to Windows 8, 9, 10, 11 (or whatever is current now) or OS X updates breaking things ("Yay, they've removed another feature!").
I don't trust the battery usage screen. When I debloated my phone, battery life increased from 1,5 days to 5 days and those were all apps I don't use.
> GrapheneOS recommendation to this was to have fewer apps
Sounds reasonable. People tend to install way too many apps on their phones and than blame the phone about short battery life or too many notifications.
What's so hard? A developer finds a bug, fixes it, publishes a new release at some point, done. Versus someone else finds a bug, maybe opens a CVE, bug gets fixed, maintainer might notice it, backports patch and fixes (or breaks) the package. The latter CVE case is the rare case, hence all the crashes. E.g. Busybox is famous for that. They have a plethora of security issues documented in their bug tracker. Sometimes they even get fixed but most of them never get a CVE, issues stay open and you can guess if it's vulnerable or not (usually it is, don't use it).
Nope, it hasn't because developers fix bugs along the way without notifying package maintainers.
> It’s not horribly broken any more than your toaster is for not needing constant updates.
I don't know where this sense of "stable" in the community comes from. Software isn't perfect and gets fixed all the time. Yes, there are packages with different maintained stable branches that you can pin for your LTS distribution but this is by far the minority. For the other stuff you constantly have to work around missing features or existing bugs. E.g., why do I have to compile "jq" by myself just because the outdated package crashes on certain inputs?!
> Depending on the particular distro, only certain core packages are likely to get updates on LTS releases.
All LTS distros fix only some core packages sporadically as no one is able to back port all the patches esp. since most packages do not use CVEs and just fix bugs on the go. "Stable" for non-rolling distributions simply means "horribly broken and outdated".
Fascists torturing communists... seems familiar.
Options -> change projection helps a little bit.
Many years ago in Germany.
Oh dear, that reminds me of one of my courses I had to take where we had to memorise the WAM and execute it on paper in the exam. Most useless course ever.
I ran it on my desktop at that time and only had to switch to Linux because FreeBSD 5.0 wasn't compatible with my machine anymore.
I'm not sure what C/C++ compilers you have in mind but bootstrapping older GCC and LLVM versions on modern systems is far from trivial and typically requires patching (e.g. older LLVM versions do not compile with modern compilers) and pinning a whole ecosystem (cmake, C lib, autotools, ...). The same is true for the other way around, modern C compilers usually do not compile on older systems and you get lucky if you find a round trip of several versions that get you a roughly working compiler at some point.
Wouldn't a 1£ Linux VM as Wireguard access point suffice?
Same for me, also the "screen" size is off (just shows window size), the location is off by hundreds of kilometres and other information is quite generic (battery level "kept back", small set of standard fonts available...).
What language/toolchain/platform are you talking about because C/C++/Python/... all have the same issues?
I can recommend "The song of the cell" as a starting point. If you prefer textbooks, maybe "Life: The Science of Biology". I have a translated non-english copy and besides some math issues it's a nice overview, but I'm not a biologist.
Or
zgrep CONFIG_CRYPTO_USER_API /proc/config.gz
You mean like PiHole or AdGuard?
I had the opposite experience. Creating the parts was easy with some tutorials but when I went to the assembly step it failed horribly. There are different plugins/ways how you can do it but none of them worked and the console solely gave cryptic error messages. I gave up and used pen and paper. :(
But the "references" in Euler seem to be close to references nowadays. There is no access to the address, no pointer arithmetic etc. such as in PL/I.
> the first language having pointers with explicit dereferencing was Euler, published completely in 1966-01
I could only find a manual for PDP-10 Euler with references. Do you have a source for an Euler with pointers?