That’s unlikely, the additional R&D cost probably won’t weigh up to the costs incurred by the small minority that removes it.

It certainly seems so to me. They haven’t responded to my reports in 8 months and their abuse email points to a broken SMTP server

I’m not sure, it was last updated a couple days ago, so it’s still being maintained. However, it does feel like there is only a sysadmin and nobody actually looks what’s happening on the instance itself.

I reported something pretty bad 8 months ago and it’s still up, I sent another message to the main SDF hosting abuse email today and hopefully they might respond to that. They’ve ignored reports for more than a year, it’s not a new problem.

It works well when you want to install software that is not compatible with your distro, but it is not a great security measure since it integrates with your host system instead of acting as a sandbox.

Isolation and sandboxing are not the main aims of the project, on the contrary it aims to tightly integrate the container with the host. The container will have complete access to your home, pen drive, and so on, so do not expect it to be highly sandboxed like a plain docker/podman container or a Flatpak.

This is just incorrect

…or containers, e.g. Docker/Podman

Distrobox is a script that manages Docker/Podman containers

What you are installing can cause damage so IMHO it’s more about keeping things manageable while having your actually important data…

Programs are installed the container, not on the host system. When you break the container the host system is fine unless using rootful (or Docker) containers.

…while having your actually important data (not programs, downloaded content, etc but rather things you did yourself, e.g. written documents, sketches, configuration files, prototypes, photos, etc) safe…

Using Distrobox does NOT keep your own files safe, it actually mounts your home directory and external USB drives inside the containers by default fully exposing your documents to whatever you install inside.

From the documentation:

Isolation and sandboxing are not the main aims of the project, on the contrary it aims to tightly integrate the container with the host. The container will have complete access to your home, pen drive, and so on, so do not expect it to be highly sandboxed like a plain docker/podman container or a Flatpak.

I don’t get why they didn’t add this link to the sidebar. I was looking for this and couldn’t find it, and the admins didn’t respond to any of the reports or DM’s. Likewise, I thought it was just a phantom ship type of instance since other Admins couldn’t get contact either.

But thanks for sharing the link, I’m going to write a mail right now because they apparently still didn’t do anything about the last thing I reported 8 months ago.

Write some kernel stuff in Rust and then see what happens in a few years time.

I think that’s what people are trying to do by writing drivers. To me, they seem like a perfect candidate for trying out Rust, they’re less tightly integrated from other parts of the code and preventing faults which can cause instability / security issues seems like a high priority. However, the code needs to integrate somewhere so bindings have to be written and it seems that is being blocked.

Assembly wouldn’t be viable because it requires rewriting for every architecture, C is the closest to assembly there is while still working on all architectures.

The original entry from the mailing list this is all about:

On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 10:33:22PM +0100, Danilo Krummrich wrote: I accept that you don’t want to be involved with Rust in the kernel, which is why we offered to maintain the Rust abstraction layer for the DMA coherent allocator as a separate component (which it would be anyways) ourselves.

Which doesn’t help me a bit. Every additional bit that the another language creeps in drastically reduces the maintainability of the kernel as an integrated project. The only reason Linux managed to survive so long is by not having internal boundaries, and adding another language complely breaks this. You might not like my answer, but I will do everything I can do to stop this. This is NOT because I hate Rust. While not my favourite language it’s definitively one of the best new ones and I encourage people to use it for new projects where it fits. I do not want it anywhere near a huge C code base that I need to maintain.

Equinix seems to be shutting down their bare metal service in it’s entirety. All projects using it will be affected.

A system daemon to allow session software to update firmware

(In case I’m not the only one who hasn’t heard of it)

I tried this a while ago in combination with tailscale, exposing the VPN as an exit node. However, I found the performance to be problematic.

Paid apps are in the works right?

Linkwarden can manage links and automatically archive the page as PDF, image, and/or HTML/CSS

You could turn it into a Home Assistant control panel if it has touch screen support

Thanks, I’ll try it again

EDIT: It works well

Do you also know if any of them support multi language spell checking?

You can run the smaller models on your desktop though

It is definitely an improvement over Java Swing. One thing I really love and miss with other frameworks is how easy it is to connect properties with each other. All values are exposed as Properties and Values. Values can be listened to, mapped and used. They are similar to RXJS’s Observables except that you can always get the internal value without a lastValueFrom that may fail. Properties can also be listened to, mapped, etc but their value can also be set from everywhere (RXJS instead has Subjects which can only be set from inside the constructor). It’s a really easy, yet powerfull system. I have yet to find a single framework that does that part as well as it does.

And regarding Rust lack of stable ABI, even if that’s resolved (and last time I checked there wasn’t much interest from within). The main Linux distributions will still have to ship the Rust stdlib as a shared library to be able to reliably depend on it being available.

I do wonder if it would be advantageous to write a safe wrapper around the C and C++ standard libraries. It would mean being able to use it’s functionality, while being relatively sure that those dependencies are available while only having to add a little extra code (and thus size) to the executable for the wrappers.