Er, Vivaldi uses the same Webkit as Chrome and Opera and Safari do. It's not an alternative browser in the sense you were going for.
Use SeaMonkey, use Firefox, use MSIE, use Edge. Those are alternative browsers -- ones with a minority rendering engine -- that are good for the health of the web.
Frankly, if you're a "very early" Linux user, you should damn well know that there are other desktop environments around, and non-desktop environments too (just pick a window manager and that's it!)
That said, there is some brain damage coming from the freedesktop crew that is really hard to avoid. Did you know that PolicyKit -- something that is pretty much needed to run X -- nowadays needs mozilla's javascript interpreter to run?
Why, you ask? Well, they decided to make it user-configurable, give it hooks. Each hook is supposed to return either true or false, to either deny access or allow access.
Do you know how many other basic system components require mozilla's javascript interpreter? Zero.
That is doable but very cumbersome. You'd need a central makefile for the whole system, and adding or removing anything would require a rebuild.
I believe the GP meant that make(1) is to work as the dependency resolver of init scripts. Because that's what make(1) is: a way to run arbitrary commands in dependency order.
He did not mean that the init system should involve compilation. (I think. I'm no mind-reader. I could be wrong.)
AFAIK, policy has not changed and phone number isn't required for new accounts, though I couldn't guarantee it. Another option for bypassing the nag is just to stay logged in all the time.
Heh, my browser is set to auto-clear all cookies on close, so any 'remember-mes' don't work for long Also, I don't care for Google recording my search history so I definitely don't keep logged in if at all possible.
You may also consider adding 2FA; there is a logical security reason why that might suppress the nag. I don't know if it does, though.
Aaand I just read Google's page on that, and learnt that the feature requires a phone number which we're kind of trying to avoid =)
If you want to not hand over your phone number to Google, then GMail is...
(The damn thing keeps bugging me to add one.)
But you don't actually have to, right?
I think that is right. I can bypass the nag, but it's still a nag on every web log-in.
I log in via IMAPS practically all the time, so I don't see the nag often.
Actually, I just tried logging in via HTTP and I got a "please fill in your backup e-mail or phone number" screen which I could not exit since I hadn't JS enabled, but I opened https://mail.google.com/ via the location bar and there I was, logged in.
(I also learnt that my backup e-mail address was on a provider that shut down a decade ago...)
What I don't know is, whether I am allowed to register a new GMail account without providing a phone number. I think it was bypassable the last time I did it (but hidden pretty well). I haven't tried in a while.
A remote code execution vulnerability exists in RPC if the server has Routing and Remote Access enabled. An attacker who successfully exploited this vulnerability could execute code on the target system. An attacker could then install programs; view, change, or delete data; or create new accounts with full user rights.
To exploit this vulnerability, an attacker would need to run a specially crafted application against an RPC server which has Routing and Remote Access enabled. Routing and Remote Access is a non-default configuration; systems without it enabled are not vulnerable.
The security update addresses the vulnerability by correcting how the Routing and Remote Access service handles requests.
Emphasis mine. Frankly, it doesn't seem very critical for us desktop users.
According to this page, only XP and 2003 Server are affected. Vista and newer aren't.
Switch statements. Did you know they use a glob like expansion in the cases?
No, I did not. I was not even aware that Perl had a switch statement -- apart from the broken Switch.pm module that was accidentally introduced to core in Perl 5.10.
That means that a switch statement is horribly slow, even if your are using all constants. This means you should use a completely different syntax in Perl called the "given... when" which provides the utility of a switch statement without the utility of being able to type it like a switch statement.
And the given...when syntax (along with smartmatching, which it is based on) is experimental/deprecated too, and has been that for many years. Unless you are talking about Perl 6?
Frankly, I've never used them, and I've been coding in Perl since... 5.6 or thereabouts? I mean, 5.8 was probably out already, just that Debian still had an older version...
There's 100's of other examples where Perl has decided it needs its own definition for something other programming languages agree upon.
I don't really think so. The one big stumbling-block seems to be scalar/list context, which doesn't exist in other languages AFAIK. Apart from that, I can't really name any of your hundreds of examples.
How the hell are you supposed to reply to someone who top-posts?
Whenever I need to converse with a top-poster, I keep deleting the old fully quoted messages the top-poster's email client left, and it gets old really quick and I lose a stupid amount of context with that act.
It's going to be a two-way street anyway because they're going to find a lot more sites that feed multiple-MB of pseudo-random crap to spiders that ignore robots.txt
I don't think archive.org actually spiders things any more. They've been on-demand archival for, what, over a decade?
I mean, they had the Alexa toolbar that automatically submitted everything that the user browsed to their index, and that is (was?) likely their main source of entries...
Try looking at an unpopular site, and you'll find few and incomplete entries spanning over several years, especially as you go deeper than the front page. But a popular web site has archive entries available for pretty much every day of their history.
Theo has voiced concerns specifically against the Apache 2.0 licence -- a decade ago.
What is up with some free software providers?! They say "Here's something free! Oh wait, I changed my mind."
While not exactly bait-and-switch, this is something which has been causing the community continual grief, and therefore we decided to honour a few of the projects that have decided to go non-free. After all.. having gone non-free, no one is going to remember them in the end. [...] The Apache group started from the humble beginnings of just being 'a patchy' set of changes to a completely free web server of dubious quality. But the years have changed them, and what they supply is now quite non-free... released under a license so entangled in legalese that we have absolutely no doubt that there are encumbrances hidden within. Legal terms protect. Who are they protecting? Not your freedom.
Basically, they refused to update their in-tree Apache from 1.3.30 to anything newer, since 1.3.31 and so forth were Apache 2.0 licensed. Many years later, I believe they removed it and replaced it with something whose licence they could agree with (nginx IIRC).
In general, the BSDs are really wary of incorporating anything that is 'less free' than the MIT/ISC/BSD license into their base system.
Where the hell do you find the time or energy to do these things?
I love coding. I've been doing it since I was ten years old. I've been coding random stuff ever since, learning a few programming languages and libraries and SQL in the meanwhile.
Then I went to a university. All I did was study and rest. Nothing more. I did not have the energy for anything more. No part-time jobs. No social life whatsoever. Just study and rest.
Everybody uses the mouse to do the most basic things on computers these days. Including things like clicking the submit / "log in" button on forms and dialogs.
I wonder when the healthcare statistics start reflecting the higher incidence of RSI.
Even the existing not-very-smart-bar feature in most browsers keeps wanting to google "http://mytestwebserver.local" or "192.168.1.254" instead of doing what I obviously want.
The Foundation Libs never existed 8 years ago. Or at least a stable version of them didn't. They were gestating in the CVS repository for over ten years.
Enlightenment 0.16 has been around since, er, 1999 or so, and its only non-standard dependency was Imlib2.
Enlightenment DR17, the first version to be based on EFL, was only released in 2012.
Slashdot Mirror
You can build a new window altogether in JavaScript, apparently, with no HTTP requests taking place. I think this is what your quote refers to.
See the javascript at e.g. sheldon brown's bicycle gear calculator page, line 422 (function showit()) and forward.
It basically uses document.write to build the whole pop-up results window.
(Yes, I was surprised to learn that such a thing was possible.)
Er, Vivaldi uses the same Webkit as Chrome and Opera and Safari do. It's not an alternative browser in the sense you were going for.
Use SeaMonkey, use Firefox, use MSIE, use Edge. Those are alternative browsers -- ones with a minority rendering engine -- that are good for the health of the web.
Frankly, if you're a "very early" Linux user, you should damn well know that there are other desktop environments around, and non-desktop environments too (just pick a window manager and that's it!)
That said, there is some brain damage coming from the freedesktop crew that is really hard to avoid. Did you know that PolicyKit -- something that is pretty much needed to run X -- nowadays needs mozilla's javascript interpreter to run?
Why, you ask? Well, they decided to make it user-configurable, give it hooks. Each hook is supposed to return either true or false, to either deny access or allow access.
Do you know how many other basic system components require mozilla's javascript interpreter? Zero.
Where did you find it so cheap? The HTC 10 costs 550 EUR here.
Three <center> tags when a single one would do.
Google was as bloated as ever back then too, I see.
Some people just prefer not having to deal with a major software upgrade to their computer every six months.
That is doable but very cumbersome. You'd need a central makefile for the whole system, and adding or removing anything would require a rebuild.
I believe the GP meant that make(1) is to work as the dependency resolver of init scripts. Because that's what make(1) is: a way to run arbitrary commands in dependency order.
He did not mean that the init system should involve compilation. (I think. I'm no mind-reader. I could be wrong.)
AFAIK, policy has not changed and phone number isn't required for new accounts, though I couldn't guarantee it. Another option for bypassing the nag is just to stay logged in all the time.
Heh, my browser is set to auto-clear all cookies on close, so any 'remember-mes' don't work for long Also, I don't care for Google recording my search history so I definitely don't keep logged in if at all possible.
You may also consider adding 2FA; there is a logical security reason why that might suppress the nag. I don't know if it does, though.
Aaand I just read Google's page on that, and learnt that the feature requires a phone number which we're kind of trying to avoid =)
If you want to not hand over your phone number to Google, then GMail is...
(The damn thing keeps bugging me to add one.)
But you don't actually have to, right?
I think that is right. I can bypass the nag, but it's still a nag on every web log-in.
I log in via IMAPS practically all the time, so I don't see the nag often.
Actually, I just tried logging in via HTTP and I got a "please fill in your backup e-mail or phone number" screen which I could not exit since I hadn't JS enabled, but I opened https://mail.google.com/ via the location bar and there I was, logged in.
(I also learnt that my backup e-mail address was on a provider that shut down a decade ago...)
What I don't know is, whether I am allowed to register a new GMail account without providing a phone number. I think it was bypassable the last time I did it (but hidden pretty well). I haven't tried in a while.
Sorry for the rambling.
If you want to not hand over your phone number to Google, then GMail is...
(The damn thing keeps bugging me to add one.)
Correct URL: https://support.microsoft.com/...
A remote code execution vulnerability exists in RPC if the server has Routing and Remote Access enabled. An attacker who successfully exploited this vulnerability could execute code on the target system. An attacker could then install programs; view, change, or delete data; or create new accounts with full user rights.
To exploit this vulnerability, an attacker would need to run a specially crafted application against an RPC server which has Routing and Remote Access enabled. Routing and Remote Access is a non-default configuration; systems without it enabled are not vulnerable.
The security update addresses the vulnerability by correcting how the Routing and Remote Access service handles requests.
Emphasis mine. Frankly, it doesn't seem very critical for us desktop users.
According to this page, only XP and 2003 Server are affected. Vista and newer aren't.
Switch statements. Did you know they use a glob like expansion in the cases?
No, I did not. I was not even aware that Perl had a switch statement -- apart from the broken Switch.pm module that was accidentally introduced to core in Perl 5.10.
That means that a switch statement is horribly slow, even if your are using all constants. This means you should use a completely different syntax in Perl called the "given ... when" which provides the utility of a switch statement without the utility of being able to type it like a switch statement.
And the given...when syntax (along with smartmatching, which it is based on) is experimental/deprecated too, and has been that for many years. Unless you are talking about Perl 6?
Frankly, I've never used them, and I've been coding in Perl since... 5.6 or thereabouts? I mean, 5.8 was probably out already, just that Debian still had an older version...
There's 100's of other examples where Perl has decided it needs its own definition for something other programming languages agree upon.
I don't really think so. The one big stumbling-block seems to be scalar/list context, which doesn't exist in other languages AFAIK. Apart from that, I can't really name any of your hundreds of examples.
Oh, maybe threads.
Top posting is what's wrong with e-mail.
How the hell are you supposed to reply to someone who top-posts?
Whenever I need to converse with a top-poster, I keep deleting the old fully quoted messages the top-poster's email client left, and it gets old really quick and I lose a stupid amount of context with that act.
while some random personal blog only get spidered every few weeks or more,
Well, my experience (as a user of archive.org, not as a webmaster) is more like 'every few years'...
FWIW, I mostly look up old static sites from around fifteen years ago. Back when people still had hitcounters.
It's going to be a two-way street anyway because they're going to find a lot more sites that feed multiple-MB of pseudo-random crap to spiders that ignore robots.txt
I don't think archive.org actually spiders things any more. They've been on-demand archival for, what, over a decade?
I mean, they had the Alexa toolbar that automatically submitted everything that the user browsed to their index, and that is (was?) likely their main source of entries...
Try looking at an unpopular site, and you'll find few and incomplete entries spanning over several years, especially as you go deeper than the front page. But a popular web site has archive entries available for pretty much every day of their history.
or is this a migration from an unusual license (some kind of openbsd license?) to something more standard?
OpenBSD has nothing to do with the OpenSSL project.
OpenSSH and OpenNTPD and OpenBGPD are the projects they are responsible for IIRC. Yes, I know, it's confusing. (OpenNTPD is wonderful, by the way.)
The current licence of OpenSSL is the four-clause BSD licence. It's not the most desirable licence but it's about as standard as you can get.
It is a migration to a more complex licence, if we count by the number of words.
Theo has voiced concerns specifically against the Apache 2.0 licence -- a decade ago.
What is up with some free software providers?! They say "Here's something free! Oh wait, I changed my mind."
While not exactly bait-and-switch, this is something which has been causing the community continual grief, and therefore we decided to honour a few of the projects that have decided to go non-free. After all.. having gone non-free, no one is going to remember them in the end.
[...]
The Apache group started from the humble beginnings of just being 'a patchy' set of changes to a completely free web server of dubious quality. But the years have changed them, and what they supply is now quite non-free... released under a license so entangled in legalese that we have absolutely no doubt that there are encumbrances hidden within. Legal terms protect. Who are they protecting? Not your freedom.
(From https://www.openbsd.org/lyrics... ; I'm sure there's a relevant mailing list post somewhere.)
Basically, they refused to update their in-tree Apache from 1.3.30 to anything newer, since 1.3.31 and so forth were Apache 2.0 licensed. Many years later, I believe they removed it and replaced it with something whose licence they could agree with (nginx IIRC).
In general, the BSDs are really wary of incorporating anything that is 'less free' than the MIT/ISC/BSD license into their base system.
I must ask...
Where the hell do you find the time or energy to do these things?
I love coding. I've been doing it since I was ten years old. I've been coding random stuff ever since, learning a few programming languages and libraries and SQL in the meanwhile.
Then I went to a university. All I did was study and rest. Nothing more. I did not have the energy for anything more. No part-time jobs. No social life whatsoever. Just study and rest.
It did not go well.
They have, but they are only accessible using the Fn key.
On my Macbook (2006) Home/End/PgUp/PgDn are located on the arrow keys. I never had a problem with that, personally.
Everybody uses the mouse to do the most basic things on computers these days. Including things like clicking the submit / "log in" button on forms and dialogs.
I wonder when the healthcare statistics start reflecting the higher incidence of RSI.
In case anyone cares, this code was first introduced in Linux 3.2.
This is for those of us who use uname -r to check their kernel version, not the year it was checked out from the kernel repos.
Even the existing not-very-smart-bar feature in most browsers keeps wanting to google "http://mytestwebserver.local" or "192.168.1.254" instead of doing what I obviously want.
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Keyw...
HTH, HAND.
I didn't read his post at all like that. I read his post as "there are moderates, and there are extremists"
And that both republicans and democrats (assuming the US here) are diverging towards extremism.
In other words, there are three sides here. He is in the "middle side", if that makes sense.
I take it that the microphone wasn't recording all the time, but that you ssh'd in and cat'd /dev/audio or something?
The Foundation Libs never existed 8 years ago. Or at least a stable version of them didn't. They were gestating in the CVS repository for over ten years.
Enlightenment 0.16 has been around since, er, 1999 or so, and its only non-standard dependency was Imlib2.
Enlightenment DR17, the first version to be based on EFL, was only released in 2012.