yjftsjthsd-h

Okay. Is it inaccurate? Buggy? Defective or deficient in any material way?

Having multiple maintained versions isn't a mystery. (Although figuring out which one you want might be; I'm.... 80%... sure you want the highest numbered "RELEASE", not "STABLE", but not 100%).

What kind of customizations would you want that requires that degree of change?

IANAL, but I would expect that to fall under "mere aggregation"

This qemu JITs things to wasm as it runs

> It is incredibly memory inefficient and will cause the user's machine to crash. Not everyone is running the latest ThinkPad or Macbook with 64GB RAM.

Thankfully, you don't need that:

> Lastly, we have an upper-bound on the size of the closure we can fetch. The whole closure has to fit in tab memory, which is set to a hard limit of ~1.5GiB as of now and WebAssembly has a hard limit of 4GiB as it is a 32-bit address space.

And it works fine on my 3-year-old phone with 8G of RAM, so I think your complete dismissal of VMs is excessive.

It's a good idea, and the implementation works. Are there actual problems, or are you just complaining that AI was used?

There's a JIT, so running the same thing more than once makes it faster:

  ~ # time hello 
  Hello, world!
  real 0m 1.89s
  user 0m 0.67s
  sys 0m 1.14s
  ~ # time hello 
  Hello, world!
  real 0m 0.97s
  user 0m 0.36s
  sys 0m 0.55s

This would to me imply an obvious route of pre-warming the resumed image with your program. Or going all-in and natively compiling to wasm, but that's a much bigger lift.

> we can run a Linux kernel in WebAssembly.

For a moment I thought someone did a port of Linux to wasm, but this is actually x86_64 Linux in a wasm qemu (with JIT, granted, which I suppose blurs the line). That's probably a lot more practical.

---

I'm stoked about the idea of using this for code review / bug reproduction / tutorials / demos. Obviously nix already gives you the reproducibility side of things, but running on any host system with zero setup and robust sandboxing should really improve its practical usefulness. Native nix doesn't give you "try this software by clicking a link and it works without installing anything", nor " here's some completely untrusted code someone wants you to run, and that's ~fine because it's in a browser tab".

... Then why would they care that it's ND?

No, they don't only increase attack surface. In particular, uBo reduces attack surface a lot more than it increases it.

Yeah, I'm really not sure that's a joke; binary packages, optionally combined with a prefix install, seem like a great fit.

Sweet, thanks. I guess running in a VM is also a bonus protective layer:)

I'm willing to believe that stock chrome has a better record than stock Firefox, but

> and on top of it you’re recommending an extension as a security measure

... Yes? Why can a browser extension not be a security measure/improvement?

Wait, you have that working? What's the lowest friction to run it? Like, VM or docker container or...

Yes, GOS is probably a direct improvement over stock android; I would also describe that as suboptimal from a user freedom perspective. Really, most of my beef with GOS is that its developers strongly object to user-controlled root. On my phone, I can run a backup app, give it root access, and backup/restore any app at will. Or, I can run a file manager with root access and inspect any data in the system. The GOS devs object to this on the grounds that any user-installed app getting root undermines their entire security model (and some other arguments that I'm going to skip because I'm trying to steel-man). And that's actually a perfectly valid argument; handing root access to apps does break their security model, but if the user doesn't have root then I'd contest the idea that the user is in control. And of course there is the fact that I have actual uses for root that GOS doesn't provide. (There are some other variants of this basic tension, like bootloader locking, but I think root is the biggest instance and representative.)

> For the freedom and security nerds they’re better off with GrapheneOS on Pixel or whatever upcoming Motorola phones will support it.

Not quite. The people who care about security first are better off with GOS, yes. However, GOS's threat model very specifically treats the user as a thing to defend against; the freedom-first crowd should avoid them.

Weird. Maybe it's a Windows thing? Not sure why that would be though

> I just started a two fresh profiles to test your claim (one in Firefox, one in Dev Edition), the opt-out for telemetry is present in the very first dialogue box and costs 2 clicks.

And now I'm confused. Firefox 153 on Linux, new profile.

First screen:

> You’re in safe paws

> We protect your data and block companies from spying on your clicks — automatically.

> Set Firefox as default browser

> Import from previous browser

Second screen:

> Give your browsing a boost

> Extensions are tiny apps that let you customize Firefox. They can power up your privacy, enhance productivity, change the way Firefox looks, and so much more.

> Explore staff recommended extensions

Third screen:

> Go anywhere. Sync everything.

> Grab bookmarks, passwords, and more everywhere you’re signed in to Firefox. Plus, your data is encrypted so only you can see it.

> Sign up or sign in

And that's it; after that it dumps out to the page of ads that is the new tab screen. If I click to Settings > Permissions and data > Firefox data collection and use, it appears that everything is default enabled except automatically sending crash reports.

> With an aerospike, you have an expensive engine that you don't want to drop (because it's perfectly efficient at every altitude) but now you have to figure out how to shed the dead mass as you go.

> Personally, I've always envisioned an aerospike working well on a Space Shuttle type vehicle- the engines are kept and the fuel tanks are discarded. I'm interested to see if aerospike development comes with a change in how we see launch vehicles in the post-shuttle era that's largely dominated by disposable or VTOL-recoverable first stages.

My immediate thought on reading that first statement was also that the space shuttle had already solved that perfectly:) Is there any caveat to just strapping on disposable fuel tanks that are jettisoned as you go? Other than needing connectors and the tiny matter of completely redesigning the overall rocket, of course;)

Yep, that sounds like the same idea:

> The format is very simple: it adds some accounting info at the start of the file, and then appends all the ELF binaries after it, adding padding for alignment. The end of the file isn't touched, so you can still do things like self-extracting .zip files for multiple architectures with FatELF.

But I would indeed call it very-not-alive; their demo image is Ubuntu 9.04

Maybe, but ELF doesn't support doing so

> So when a third party (i.e. Valve) makes shim that grants linux functionality, it's not really on Ubisoft to maintain that.

I agree that it's not on them to maintain it, but that's different from intentionally breaking it.

You might consider one of the alternative front ends. Won't fix the repos being unavailable, but will fix notifications about it.

So this is like https://github.com/n0-computer/dumbpipe but built out of tailscale instead of iroh?

> Mach-O does more than ELF, and enables the two-layer namespacing that makes macOS able to manage dynamic linking dependencies better than ELF.

I've always admired that mach-o supports fat binaries.

If you're used to a "normal" network with a router, it's a revelation that you can go direct.

I am 95% confident you don't actually need to assign IPs. Do this:

  # ping all link-local devices on an interface:
  ping ff02::1%eth0

And then do your socat/rsync/whatever to the only IP that responds.

As the article says,

> Removable storage is quite slow unless you are willing to spend a lot of money.

An SSD good enough to copy tens of GB quickly is not cheap.

Losing the back half of the achieve doesn't lose your directory list. (Truth be told, I prefer the approach of sticking a copy on the front and back for redundancy, but I appreciate that that's a very specific tradeoff)