arisudesu

I highly doubt they'd throw away decade of engineering of the JavaScript application, to rewrite it from scratch. Probably would change desktop wrapper from Electron to Tauri or something else

Another niche distribution which opposed the AI. I hope none of its maintainers resign due to burnout from tasks which could be easily offloaded to AI.

No, it wouldn't. Just yesterday I added a domain.example + *.domain.example certificate, and today some bot comes to scan for subdomains: api, app, backup, beta, cdn, ci, mail etc. Blog isn't in the list, but just for this bot.

Lots of words about how site owners can enable this "thing". But is it true that they can toggle it off at any moment? How as a visitor can I know in advance, whether OHTTP is enabled for my request and prevent making it, if OHTTP is not available?

I'd rather you refuse to let ViGEmBus die. :)

> Why you don’t have a FTP server

May be due to US DoD holding large amounts of IPv4 for no reason

But it really is, in a sense that another program is required to interpret IL format, even if it is JIT-compiled after loading. Think of it similar to the ELF interpreter for dynamically-linked binaries.

Speaking of compilation to a self-contained binary, I hope in the future G# will support it. No mentions as of today though.

"Go ... ergomonics" "G# compiles straight to managed assemblies and runs on the modern .NET runtime"

These two are nothing close because it completely misses Go's ergonomics of compilation to portable static-linked binaries. For language constructs, maybe they have similar ergonomics, but the language is not only constructs. You have to ship your programs somehow, and this is where requirement to ship both binaries and the interpreter for them, sucks.

Quoting the site guidelines:

> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.

What do you mean by 'LAN', everything should be routable globally with IPv6 decade ago anyway /s

Doesn't it require a central server for communications?

And so, WhatsApp has reached parity with Telegram in features, in the sense that both now show ads (even though Telegram was initially promoted as always free and without ads, it was the first to abandon this promise and shamefully removed it from the main page).

Time for a new messenger, and I don’t mean Signal, but the creation of some kind of old Skype, with a peer to peer protocol. It was very good before Microsoft bought it. Of course, if the code is open and does not require a proprietary server part.

Having short-lived certificates is good, replacing them too often is not. This is implemented trivially for single-host deployments which just run certbot or ACME each subdomains. But for sophisticated setups where a certificate for a domain (or multiple domains or a wildcard) must be shared across fleet of hosts, it is a burden.

There are no ready-made tools available to automate such deployments. Especially if a certificate must be the same for each of the hosts, fingerprint included. Having a single, authoritative certificate for a domain and its wildcard subdomains deployed everywhere is much simpler to monitor. It does not expose internal subdomains in certificate transparency logs.

Unfortunately, organizations (persons) involved in decisions, do not provide such tools in advance.

Doskey is a (kind of) Windows replacement for shell aliases, and it can be configured to auto-execute macros file in new cmd.exe windows.

Surely this is possible way to alias commands, but keep in mind that PATH extensions are made available not only in shell, but to all programs started from it, well, because it is environ. Whereas aliases are available only for use inside shell, but they're not executable by programs started from it. They are not the same.

May it happen that CloudFlare stops sending their call invitations to me. I have an account at them which has shared access to company domains, because sometimes I was needed to assist with them. CloudFlare reps repeatedly e-mail me to schedule a call, even after I replied to them and told that I am not a person directly responsible for our domains and asked to stop mailing me. Whoever was their rep at that time, answered that they will stop. Some time passed, and they started e-mailing again. Eventually I started putting their e-mails to spam folder.

Either I don't understand the problem completely, or why wasn't it possible to introduce something like 'ex' address family that allowed to pass and disambiguate extended parameter format(s) which would include array sizes etc? We had these *Ex functions everywhere in Win32 API for an eternity, why unices couldn't do the same trick?

There's no update in app. I'm on 115.12.2 esr. How's Thunderbird's branches work, again?

This script is explicitly a Bash script and it is not executable by every other shell present on modern unix-like systems. Examples are Korn shell, Almquist shell. Hence the distinction: if one states that the script is a shell-script, it implies that it can be interpreted by any modern shell, for which there is only one common denominator, POSIX. This script is explicitly only Bash shell compatible, not any-shell compatible.

I am not familiar with zsh, but is it really interpreted by zsh? Because the script has #!/usr/bin/env bash in its shebang, isn't it executed by bash on your system, even if launched from zsh?

As a bash script actually, not a (implied POSIX) shell script. Do not mix these two.

musl support would be highly appreciated.

I understand that rustup can be convenient, but I don't get why they insist on using this tool. It should be enough to distribute the toolchain and std as a zip file.

Why are all these problems? Wasn't this solved already years ago in another software, I mean, Xorg? Why do we need to revisit the problem again?

Mind sharing the reasons?

Don't confuse the Internet and networks please. Older machines are completely fine to be used in private firewall-protected networks, as long as they're facing only LAN. SSH still be required to access them.

By request flood I mean, request flood, as in sending insanely high number of requests per unit of time (second) to the target server to cause exhaustion of its resources.

You're right, with HTTP/1.1 we have single request in-flight (or none in keep-alive state) at any moment. But that doesn't limit number of simultaneous connections from a single IP address. An attacker could use the whole port space of TCP to create 65535 (theoretically) connections to the server and to send requests to them in parallel. This is a lot, too. In pre-HTTP/2 era this could be mitigated by limiting number of connections per IP address.

In HTTP/2 however, we could have multiple parallel connections with multiple parallel requests at any moment, this is by many orders higher than possible with HTTP/1.x. But the preceeding mitigation could be implemented by applying to the number of requests over all connections per IP address.

I guess, this was overlooked in the implementations or in the protocol itself? Or rather, it is more difficult to apply restrictions because of L7 protocol multiplexing because it's entirely in the userspace?

Added: The diagram in the article ("HTTP/2 Rapid Reset attack" figure) doesn't really explain why this is an attack. In my thinking, as soon as the request is reset, the server resources are expected to be freed, thus not causing exhaustion of them. I think this should be possible in modern async servers.

Is is a fundamental HTTP/2 protocol issue or implementations issue? Could this be an issue at all, if a server has strict limits of requests per IP address, regardless of number of connections?

Can anyone can explain what's novel about this attack that isn't plain old requests flood?

If you run only the software you wrote, then yes, it is useful feature. Otherwise I won't trust automated pulls of whatever other devs put into their public images, nor won't I trust them for following image versioning properly and not introducing some addition in minor version that would automatically expose my files to the internet if not configured explicitly. There is too much trust I don't want to put in auto-updates.

As for the SystemD dependency, in this case the quadlets can not even be compared to docker-compose, nor be a replacement to it. Docker-compose always was independent of init system, where as quadlets are strictly tied to SystemD-based distros. E.g. users of Alpine, Gentoo won't be able to replace their compose stacks with quadlets.