cyclohexane

joined 3 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 years ago

Mistakes happen. This is one of the most common vulnerabilities in the software world. Again, it's easy to say it's insane when you aren't the one making it. I don't see you making anything half as good and without mistakes.

Constructive criticism is okay, but this isn't it. Sounds very entitled.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Why gentoo so low

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I bet they copied some code for mastodon and paid Gargron to not try to go after them. That would definitely give them a huge lift. Otherwise, I don't see how they were able to quickly come up with this. Tech companies take forever to build stuff usually

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

Nothing is 100% secure. FOSS is definitely more secure, all else equal.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

I mean if a github project has only 3 stars, it means no one is using it. Why does safety matter here? Early adopting anything has risks.

This is kind of a false comparison. If it has 3 stars then it doesn't even qualify for this conversation as literally no one is using it.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

There is a much higher chance that someone out of 7 billion people will audit open source than it is likely for a corporation to do it, let alone make it publicly known and fix it.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

Software vendor supply chain affects ALL software. It is caught much sooner with open source.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 years ago

Random strangers are more trustworthy, because they're most likely users like you are.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Although this is fair, those contributors were from a research group from a prestigious university. That makes them much more trustworthy by default, and its natural that a code reviewer will give them more benefit of doubt.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 41 points 2 years ago (7 children)
  1. Yes, I do it occasionally
  2. You don't need to. If it's open source, it's open to billions of people. It only takes one finding a problem and reporting it to the world
  3. There are many more benefits to open source: a. It future proofs the program (many old software can't run on current setups without modifications). Open source makes sure you can compile a program with more recent tooling and dependencies rather than rely on existing binaries with ancient tooling or dependencies b. Remove reliance on developer for packaging. This means a developer may only produce binaries for Linux, but I can take it and compile it for MacOS or Windows or a completely different architecture like ARM c. It means I can contribute features to the program if it wasn't the developer's priority. I can even fork it if the developer didn't want to merge it into their branch.
[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That's a good idea, but it only makes the problem a little better. I still wouldn't want one large aliases.sh file with environment variables for every application I customized. Would rather have them separate somehow without gobbling up a file

view more: ‹ prev next ›