Defintely seems potentially better than no updates at all.
How do you know if you have a wide open CVE they're ignoring, like it's claimed ubuntu are doing?
10G looks a little less consumer-y. I'd imagine cisco, arista, etc do security updates if you want to go down that path.
How about forwarding a port for wireguard or ssh?
MIPS and Arm have no security issues ever so never need patching which is an x86 only thing? Or maybe this comment is no more relevant than pointing out not all Arm patches apply to x86?
LLMs are giving script kids nation state level tools and expertise.
But what do I know about it beyond that?
That would be a bold claim and one I've never heard before. Hard not to be suspicious of it.
This secuirty floor is unlikely to be the only secuirty floor that ever happens to a kernel used by routers.
The point: Consumer routers do not seem to get updates. Ever.
Is that a worry or what?
Every consumer router-wirelessAP I've seen runs linux.
I never see security upgrades for the kernels they use. Not one. Not ever.
Is this something that should be a cause for concern? Even if you don't run a consumer-grade tplink, netgear, asus, whatever router yourself.
This is nothing like academic journal peer review, where you can't see the failed submissions for the paper and why. You have no clue if the reviewers were interested in the topic, diligent, drunk or playing politics "support papers from these institutions because they're the good guys, undermine those because they are or aren't from Europe." You have no idea if the paper has since failed to replicate on multiple occasions. You have no idea if you are the first person to actually read the paper and when you have you thoughts, no matter how insightful, well articulated and supported by evidence, those thoughts do not matter to the publication process of that paper, which has been peer reviewed.
Public review by the knowledgeable who care is a very different thing to so called "peer review."
Just gut feel. Software you encounter, use regularly, whatever. Not the stuff you work on if you do.Feel like things are more stable and work better? Less so? About the same?
Time will tell and should it turn out to be be a con, the con will have moved on.
[1] https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2017/10/18/beyond-pow...
It should be unsurprising if comments here, made in public, capable of being challenged are far higher quality than official "peer review" which has really become a bit of a joke. Has been for quite a long time, to be fair. (And unsurprising if not, it's a web forum).
Peer reviewed and published means precisely excrement in a world where papers are not retracted and failures to replicate are refused publication by the "prestigious" "peer-reviewed" journals that published the original.
Intelligent, reasoned, knowledgeable review going back and forth with the author in public makes "peer review" seem just as silly as it usually is. Review by peer professor's indentured servants aka PhD students is often actually higher quality, if wildly dishonest and quite frankly disgraceful.
We now live in a world where LLMs can produce papers. Actual research is a little more interesting, with or without LLM. The journal peer review system doesn't seem to be helping.
Not so much in accounting, which is a much easier problem.
Software devs eagerly trained their replacement.
What is an assert handler? Is it a debugger for the dump so you can get a backtrace and examine things that way? $ gdb ./prog core Your macro finishes by calling abort() so you have that.
The value of being able to print an arbitrary string, with whatever current variable values you like is not nothing. Printing out a backtrace (if you can with your codebase) is also really useful. Obviously your own macro will print file, line and function. assert(a == b); triggering tells you almost nothing about the failure, why the check was there, what failed etc. It really should.
ASSERT(cond, "msg %s", str_contents); //#ifndef NDEBUG logic
ASSERT_ALWAYS( ...);
assert() is just kind of nasty, why use it?
precondition in the function sig is just "We know you don't document and nobody reads it if you do." Which is great, but not worth the control you get writing your own ASSERT_ALWAYS() and being able to s/_ALWAYS//if the performance in release matters.
search:
TRMNL e-ink
edit: yeah a long way short of 31"
owntone + shairport-sync
Owntone holds your collection on the sever and can stream to airport, airport2, dlna.
Shairport-sync turns a raspberry pi zero 2w, or orange pi zero 2w into an airport {1,2} speaker. Or use a (super cheap) esp32 airport 2 from aliexpress.
Can sync every room in the house with owntone OR "I want my phone or laptop's sound to come out of the speakers in this room"
Owntone has access to your paid spotify account if you want that. Can stream to your phone with http (remotely with wireguard vpn). Also has mpd controls if you want those and can use apple remote app on your phone if you like that.
Owntone, pihole and wireguard is reason enough alone to put an old laptop into service as a home server.
People with script-kiddie level skills now have access to nation-state level attack expertise via LLM.
All failed and all useful. This time ...
This! And it isn't close either.