goku12

> It’s a circle that needs to be broken. It has multiple parties even without device manufacturers.

Well, you're right, however badly I don't want to admit it. Google broke that cycle once with Android. I'm sure that Apple would have too, even if they were not the first mover. And there's no question that their wealth and influence had a massive role in it - something an open platform cannot match realistically.

But the current situation is simply untenable anymore. I want out, no matter how many others don't care for it. The open platform has to be just functional enough (including app support, even as PWAs), for us to break free from this duopoly. Just like how Linux and BSDs are on desktops. I'm able to do everything on it from work to netbanking. I would hate it really badly if I was forced to use Windows or MacOS these days.

> Even some government apps in the EU, essentially forcing you to be spied on by google.

The same in India. I can't use even the government weather app and the disaster alerts app without signing in to google play.

Seeing that this malpractice (of forcing the users into Google's surveillance net) is widespread among seemingly unrelated agencies like banks and government agencies of several nations, I would really like to know who is peddling this draconian scheme among them.

I want to send some angry rants to the app owners/developers and ask for those malicious peddlers to be permanently banned from further interference in cyber security matters of these institutions.

Don't be so sure that it hasn't reached that level yet. The Nazis got into power the same way this administration did, and they did the same that this administration is doing right now - demolish the constitutional safeguards and institutions. And if the missing ingredient is the concentration camps or gulags, their civilian population were oblivious about it too, until much later. ICE has arrested so many people whose current whereabouts are not known. Any idea what's happening to them? Also, how many people are dying due to the anti-social policies like cutting down meal plans and medicaid plans?

The comment section here is an incredibly disturbing read, as to how many people are trying to justify this on-site extra-judicial execution. Let me start by saying that all this debate itself is meaningless to start with. No police or law and order agency is supposed to execute a civilian under these circumstances in any country. That should instantly be taken as a murder by an official empowered to prevent exactly that. As far as I understand, ICE is not even a law and order agency and has even less authority to do so.

The woman was occupying just one lane, which means there is no merit to the claim that she was obstructing them. And then no matter what she did next, the masked agents just walk up to her vehicle and try to pry open her door and pull her out. That is not what the police do. That's what the mafia does. Anybody facing such a harrowing situation is likely to panic and try to get away. A real officer would know that and won't shoot a panicked and unarmed person who has her hands on the wheel. Nothing about the circumstances suggest a regular confrontation with a law and order agency. It's a terror campaign. The people arguing the self-defense claim based on some flaky technicalities are psychopaths who lack any respect for human lives.

Whenever I mention Nazism in here to make a serious point, I get downvoted based on some unexplained moral outrage. It's either because 'it's so disturbing' or because people don't like the comparison with the worst that humanity has produced, or because I'm 'cheapening' (trivializing) the Holocaust and insulting its victims! Lame in my opinion, because there is no worse insult to its victims than to just let the horrors repeat!

Well, these outraged people can just stay outraged all they want, because I'm going say this in no uncertain terms. The US and HN has a real Nazi problem - at least in ideology, if not outright in spirit. And another Holocaust is not entirely out of the question either, because back in the past too, it wasn't that well known in public even among the German citizens until the allied forces overran the concentration camps. Who knows what is going on in the shadows right now, when so many people are comfortable with justifying murder, racism, invasions and imperialism?

You're too pretentious if you think that the horrors of the past can't repeat, because history sets precedents and shifts the Overton window. I know that HN is primarily a technical forum. But I seriously don't care if I lose my entire HN score for this, because what is the point of having any technology if it is to live like slaves under tyranny? This is one matter that well worth saying out loud, no matter how unpopular it is or how disturbing a suggestion it is.

Now let's look at the atrocities that ICE has committed so far. Intimidation/terrorizing, destruction of property, attacks on local law enforcement, kidnappings, child abuse, racial discrimination, denial of justice/due process, illegal warrantless arrests and detention, inciting riots, armed attacks on unarmed civilian protestors, attack on media personnel, attack on elected representatives (the last three constituting attack on democracy), human trafficking, torture and murder. It pretty much ticks all the agenda that the Gestapo used to have. Does Nazism sound all that improbable now? Governments around the world should be classifying ICE as a state-funded terrorist organization right now and sanctioning its leaders and members. They should be arrested and tried at Hague or Nuremberg if they step outside the US.

I'm deeply disturbed by how fast we forget the fragility and preciousness of human lives. And the worst is that we have historical examples showing us what will happen. And yet, we relentlessly justify their replay unconcerned?

I don't think murder charges will deter anything at this point. I don't know anything about US laws, but these activities deserve to be charged with and treated as acts of terrorism. At least the foreign nations need to start designating and sanctioning ICE as a state-sponsored terrorist organization involved in criminal activities including criminal intimidation, arbitrary detention, kidnapping, child abuse, hostage taking, human trafficking and murder. Their known leadetship and agents should be captured and tried at Hague if they step outside the US. Deal with them the same as Gestapo.

(Memory) safe languages are allowed to guarantee memory safety at any stage, including at runtime using GC and bound checks. That makes every GC language memory safe to a reasonable extend. The novelty in Rust is that it does the same at compile time, mostly automatically.

Like this? https://github.com/tursodatabase/turso

Disclaimer: Credit goes to whoever mentioned this in this discussion before me.

> It is a well-known and well-understood language.

This isn't entirely true. There are a bunch of UBs that you have to be very careful about. C has the right idea about simplicity. But deterministic behavior is also important because someone will find a way to make use of UBs in their code.

Many of those are still under active development (both language and tooling) and code is still being written in them. They have hardly disappeared.

> Ruby and Python are written mostly in C underneath. > > Many try to replace C. All failed.

What do you mean by all failed? Rust supports CPython modules using PyO3 [1]. Even the popular polars dataframe library [2] uses it.

[1] https://github.com/PyO3/pyo3

[2] https://github.com/pola-rs/polars

The only reasonable way to solve that problem is to design a standard ABI that supports expression of all features in modern compiled languages like Rust, Go, Zig, Haskell, Ada, etc. It doesn't make any sense to design stable ABIs for each language separately, because then you'll end up with a system directory full of dynamic libraries of several distinct ABIs.

What do you mean by useful dynamic linking? Dynamic linking with C ABI is supported natively in Rust and is very widely used (just checked GitHub), especially for FFI like in Python modules (PyO3). If you mean an ABI that supports all the Rust features (without extern C), then it's a problem faced by every language that has more features than C - C++, Haskell, Go, Zig, etc included. To solve that problem, somebody will have to design a new stable standard common ABI that natively supports all the features from these languages, or at least makes it possible to express these features in some way.

My hunch is that those aren't very serious Rustaceans. Even the original language developers developed Rust to interoperate with C as much as possible, and they often used to discourage the rewrite evangelism. If you are a serious Rustacean, you'd probably be worried about the safety tradeoffs in rewriting in Rust. As your parent commenter points out, a mature C codebase is already tested so well that rewriting it in Rust is likely to introduce more bugs - non-memory-safety bugs that are nevertheless serious enough. That's why I and many other Rustaceans don't recommend it. In fact, some Rustaceans even advise others to not rewrite Fortran 90 code (in order to preserve the performance advantage) and instead recommend integrating it with Rust using FFI.

> There’s growing skepticism toward OOP, and that’s reflected in the popularity of languages like Rust and Zig, which are explicitly designed to push against traditional object-oriented patterns.

I don't know about Zig, but my experience with Rust's trait system is that it isn't explicitly against OOP. Traits and generics feel like an extension and generalization of the OOP principles. With OOP, you have classes (types) and/or objects (instances) and bunch of methods specific to the class/object. In Rust, you extend that concept to almost all types including structs and enums.

> OOP, by contrast, offers a new conceptual lens: objects, inheritance, polymorphism, and eventually design patterns.

Rust doesn't have inheritance in the traditional sense, but most OOP languages prefer composition to data inheritance. Meanwhile, polymorphism, dynamic dispatch and design patterns all exist in Rust.

If you're going to post a click and rage bait article, at least mention when it was published. We're close to the article's first anniversary. A lot has changed in between and the premise of this story isn't even valid or relevant anymore for it to be on HN again. And that's a charitable interpretation, given that the 3 cases that the article presents to argue that Rust was 'rejected by major projects' need special scrutiny.

But first, let's look at where Rust stands now. The Fish shell has been ported to Rust entirely. Git is experimenting with Rust integration. Linux has declared the Rust4Linux project out of experimental stage - which means that Rust code will more or less be a permanent part of Linux from now on. FreeBSD is experimenting with Rust in their kernel. Microsoft has declared their intention to replace all critical code with Rust in the future. A lot of JavaScript development tools are now in Rust. There's just too many other cases for me to continue like this. The 'downfall' part is a bit out of touch with reality here.

Now let's look at the 3 cases that the author uses to dismiss Rust as a failure:

1. Daniel Stenberg's attempt to integrate the Rust Hyper backend into curl. He abandoned it because he found it too hard to integrate it into C. So the case chosen here is a small team attempting to combine code in two programming languages. Such attempts are always challenging, experimental and never guaranteed to succeed. Choosing such an uncertain task to evaluate Rust's capabilities is not a fair deal at all. Yet, they did manage to integrate two other Rust backends - rustls (for TLS) and uiche (for QUIC and HTTP/3). So perhaps they didn't fail at all? And Linux succeeded in the same task at a much bigger scale.

2. Prisma migrating its core logic from Rust to TypeScript. How is this an apples to apples comparison? The article itself says that it was because of the preference of a primarily typescript crowd. They wanted access to the core, but their lack of Rust knowledge made it difficult for them. So Rust was out of place there to begin with. Another inappropriate case for evaluating Rust.

3. Author Austin Stark's experience with Rust for his trading platform. This is probably the most egregious example. Austin wrote the article complaining about Rust in June 2024 - 7 months before this article. But he reversed his stance and praised Rust in December 2024 - a month before this article. The author just ignored the latter completely. I can't take this seriously.

I'm an enthusiastic Rust programmer. But I really don't mind articles that are critical of Rust, as long as they shed some valuable insight on Rust or systems programming in general. But this one reads either like a lazy attempt at a hit on Rust or as a rage bait for clicks. I always avoid touching the personal side of such submissions, but I can't help notice this about @RustSupremacist who submitted this one. You've submitted 8 stories so far, including 5 dissing on Rust (including 3 that got flagged) and one dissing on Zig. Why not write an article on your beef with Rust and post it here, instead of reposting misleading baits?

Those may be forked copies of the main adblocker process. If so, you'll get the benefit of CoW page deduplication.

The Zen browser - a derivative of Firefox, also supports split tabs (and a lot of others like spaces, vertical tabs and glances). The project seems fairly active and up to date in the past few years.

The question is, how will you obtain that IP address from them? DNS was the answer to that question. So when you ask that question again, you're effectively asking for a DNS alternative.

> How do you do that practically? Do you read the source of every single package before doing a `brew update` or `npm update`?

There are several ways to do this. What you mentioned is the brute-force method of security audits. That may be impractical as you allude to. Perhaps there are tools designed to catch security bugs in the source code. While they will never be perfect, these tools should significantly reduce the manual effort required.

Another obvious approach is to crowd source the verification. This can be achieved through security advisory databases like Rust's rustsec [1] service. Rust has tools that can use the data from rustsec to do the audit (cargo-audit). There's even a way to embed the dependency tree information in the target binary. Similar tools must exist for other languages too.

> What if these sources include binary packages?

Binaries can be audited if reproducible builds are enforced. Otherwise, it's an obvious supply chain risk. That's why distros and corporations prefer to build their software from source.

[1] https://rustsec.org/

That's a lot of work to bypass the blocks on a browser that's far from the market leader. Now, even if the browser does become popular enough in the future to be targeted, the developers would probably gain enough resources and support to replace one of the engines with the other.

The dynamic libraries that use the unstable Rust ABI are called `dylib`s, while those that use the stable C ABI are called `cdylib`s. Suppose a stable version of the Rust ABI is defined, what would be the point of putting dynamic libraries that follows this API, in the system? Only Rust would be able to open it, whereas the system shared libraries are traditionally expected to work across languages using C ABI and language-specific wrappers. By extension, this is a problem that affects all languages that has more complex features than C. Why would this be considered as a Rust flaw?

That is not correct. Dynamic linking is natively supported in Rust. How else do you make modules for scripting languages like Python (using PyO3) [1]? It uses the stable C API (cdylib).

[1] https://pyo3.rs/v0.15.1/#using-rust-from-python

Rust does support C ABI through cdylib (as opposed to the unstable dylib ABI). This is used widely, especially for FFI. An example of this is Python modules in Rust using PyO3 [1].

[1] https://pyo3.rs/v0.15.1/#using-rust-from-python

Beautiful work on an interesting subject!

Well! Not really a surprise, is it? We knew that DNS censorship was coming sooner or later. The real surprise is that it lasted so long. X509 (TLS) PKI is also probably being abused right now. We know how differently the administration sees services like these that are actually beneficial to humanity. Choosing to rely on services like DNS and PKI exclusively for the function they provide is a very bad idea going forward for us normies.

We should have considered these centralized and corporate driven core infrastructure components as interim measures while more independent alternatives were being developed. We have a few different alternatives right now. Can't we just choose one and switch over? (something not based on blockchains.) Something like GNU Name System, may be?

PS: They will probably block the IP if Server hold/DNS block is not useful anymore. That's a different problem though.

As long as there is centralization, there is always an avenue for abuse with money. The DNS root itself is heavily influenced by a group of allied nations, through the ICANN if I'm right. That can be used to exert pressure on TLD registries, including ccTLD registries. Of course, that cannot be used for surgical control single domains like Anna's Archives'. But DNS blocking is an old technique by now. The copyright cartel needs to get it banned only in a few populous countries to destroy the value of a domain. We can keep finding workarounds. But at some point, they won't have to worry about people who can actually do that.

> If US meddling was so effective, why wasn’t Venezuela already doing what the US wanted?

Messing up the situation and leaving the natives to clean up after them is what the US does every time.

> This seems like a thought-terminating cliche.

The US excuses to military aggression is a cliché. Responses to clichés with a cliché should come as no surprise.

> You’re describing a hypothetical future,

> What incredible privilege you have to be worried about future labor exploitation at yet-to-be-built resort casinos.

This is an incredibly dishonest take on this situation. You ignore the innumerable historical precedents out there. And you call it hypothetical when they have already made it clear that economic exploitation is exactly what they plan to do. Heck! What is the story of this discussion even about? You're displaying willful and selective ignorance here.

> Maduro’s government shot about two dozen people who had the nerve to protest the last election. Violence against women and children doesn’t get much worse.

How did Maduro get into power in the first place? What is the situation in the other natutal resource-rich countries you invaded in the name of freedom? The US didn't spend all that money to invade a nation to replace its dictatorship with something better, did they?

These self-righteous self-aggrandizing justifications are just too disturbing to read. This is one of those harrowing comments that justify utterly reprehensible and psychopathic behavior.

Let's be honest here. Venezuela's people are not going to see any benefit from the investment that US is planning over there, besides some token development to show the international media. Any sort of investment is going to be for pillaging their economy and resources even further. If Trump and his cronies haven't made that clear by now, the history of US involvement in that country in the past is evidence enough. This is neocolonialism - the unholy amalgamation of colonialism and capitalist exploitation. Pretending that this is for the benefit of Venezuelans is just dishonest, to put it mildly.

> That’s not true. War as such is undesirable, but fighting one is not categorically immoral.

Do you know one war where either side hasn't resorted to immoral activities? Everywhere from WWI allied power to modern day wars, the western nations have resorted to spine chilling crimes that nobody in the west wants to talk about. Just because the other side commits even bigger crimes doesn't mean that it absolves you of all sin. Even in the modern day wars like in Afghanistan, the allied forces have resorted to killing of unarmed civilians including children. I'm not even going to start with the other crimes.

The western nations have this delusion that they fight some sort of righteous war where they can do no wrong. But go to those countries and ask why they're so hostile towards the west. This is why whenever I talk about Nazism in its historical context, people in here become uncomfortable and downvote even recorded historical facts. They don't want to admit that they were not always the righteous side. I gave the examples of Hamburg and Dresden. And like I said, even Churchill was critical of it. If you say it was moral, then I see the same attitude on both sides of the war. Such activities may have been inevitable during the war. But denying its immorality now is just misguided moral chauvinism.