rkta

> The suggestion that paying OSS maintainers is a solution really misses some major issues.

As a maintainer, the biggest major issue is that I don't want their money.

The quilt patch series comes from the time when I was basing my work on the Debian version, it was easier for me to follow upstream than rebasing branches.

Most patches are now merged into master, only some unfinished work is still in that series. I should update the docs.

And as my browser does not automatically follow any redirects I'm left with some text in a language I don't understand.

There is an maintained (by me) fork at https://w3m-pager.org

Here is my fork of w3m, which is not dead:

https://w3m-pager.org

> Text fragments are currently supported in all the browsers.

All meaning all the browsers listed in the linked table. These may be the major browsers, but not all of them.

Why don't you read your local man pages? w3m comes with w3mman to do so.

With local man pages I know at least that the man page matches my installed version.

> An attacker can use this vulnerability to obtain root on OpenBSD 7.4 and 7.5.

Ouch! And this all due to unsanitized user input. I really would have expected better from OpenBSD in 2023. I mean I would expect better from everyone but especially from OpenBSD.

It's still there and it works quite well for HN because it can display the spacer gif, so you get indentation for the threads.

After reading the website and also trying the mentioned `ssh pr.pico.sh help` I still don't know what exactly to do to use this.

> 4. External contributor submits a PR to SSH server But how? That numbered list let me think of that old cartman profit meme.

I like the idea, but I'm not convinced yet, that this is really easier than just sending an email by `git request-pull`.

> Sure, who cares, nobody targets w3m in 2024.

I care. There's still w3m users out there - and I am one of them.

I don't care if the website looks like shit, but at least keep it usable for us.

Parsing ls is an anti-pattern, but the author says it works for years - we all do mistakes and as long as it works you don't notice.

And it's an easy fix:

    - for project in $(ls go-cicd); do
    + cd go-cicd || exit 1; for project in \*; do

The attacker had access to the GH mirror of the repo. The original repo remained at https://git.tukaani.org/

What's malicious about that patch? From reading the thread it looks like an attempt to fix a FP from some tooling.

The official channel for the project.

While w3m can display images, it assumes running in an xterm. I don't know how xterm compatible termux is nor if w3mimg uses some tricks which are not possible on Android due to sandboxing etc.

But I would be interested in the result if you ever try it.

I quoted only parts of the page. My point is, when being unique while being strongly protected, am I really protected?

  Our tests indicate that you have you have strong protection against Web tracking.

  Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 191,640 tested in the past 45 days.

  User Agent
  w3m/0.5.3+git20230718
  Bits of identifying information: 17.55
  One in x browsers have this value: 191640.0

So I have strong protection by being basically unique? Not sure what this means.

> The site also will filter incoming spam with in-house technology that uses artificial intelligence to look for machine-generated postings

Some things don't change.

Yes, like the app to warn me in case of a disaster which gets the location permission removed and thus cannot warn me anymore.

And so everyone has his own kink. I'd love to backport patches maintaining some legacy code base.

As a text browser user I thank you for adding that label.

It's in the original headline, but I had to cut it because it was too long.

Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1077/

And no one can talk to a horse, of course.

The Bash FAQ disagrees:

https://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ/105

The TFA is referenced at the bottom of this FAQ.

Correct, they are optional, not deprecated. That was sloppy on my side.

VLAs have been deprecated, alloca was never part of a C standard AFAIK.

I was not suggesting that any of both is a good idea - but they are tools 'for programs where the amount of items you must store is only known at run time.' (Assuming that not having to free is considered "automatic memory management").

Interesting. If I think 'automatic memory management' in C I think about not having to free.

Of course you are right that it's not the same as using e.g. a Python List.

C99 has VLAs and there is always man 3 alloca