On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:51:18AM -0400, Calvin Morrison wrote:
> http://man.openbsd.org/crypto.3
Indeed. Still actually an internal library of openssl, not a library split from
the network code with a life of its own, as it should be.
Maybe libreSSL will do things right like gnutls on this matt
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 06:47:22PM +0200, Kamil Cholewiński wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, sylvain.bertr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > When people are using the word "openbsd", it does designate the kernel
> > project.
> > Not the userland projects.
>
> Completely not true. Please check your facts.
Che
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, sylvain.bertr...@gmail.com wrote:
> When people are using the word "openbsd", it does designate the kernel
> project.
> Not the userland projects.
Completely not true. Please check your facts.
On 16 June 2017 at 11:49, wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 02:06:30PM +0200, Laslo Hunhold wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 09:53:07 +
>> sylvain.bertr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Dear Sylvain,
>>
>> > openbsd is as shitty as linux and their security thingy is just
>> > bullshit.
>>
>> are you ser
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 02:06:30PM +0200, Laslo Hunhold wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 09:53:07 +
> sylvain.bertr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Dear Sylvain,
>
> > openbsd is as shitty as linux and their security thingy is just
> > bullshit.
>
> are you serious? LibreSSL is proof enough that OpenBSD
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 09:53:07 +
sylvain.bertr...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Sylvain,
> openbsd is as shitty as linux and their security thingy is just
> bullshit.
are you serious? LibreSSL is proof enough that OpenBSD's approach is
probably the sanest for a general solution.
Not to go too OT, but
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 04:46:55PM +0200, Kamil Cholewiński wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Dominykas Mostauskis
> wrote:
> software. Go install base OpenBSD on a potato, it has everything you
> choices for hacking on C, Perl or shell. It has a toolchain, and loads
openbsd is as shitty as linux an
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Dominykas Mostauskis
wrote:
> Here's an idea. As an alternative to wrestling with resource heavy
> applications directly, implement heavy taxation on consumer device
> computational power. [...]
>
> To continue the regulation rant, closed source should be taxed
> similarly. [
On 15 June 2017 at 10:13, Dominykas Mostauskis
wrote:
> Here's an idea. As an alternative to wrestling with resource heavy
> applications directly, implement heavy taxation on consumer device
> computational power. That is, tax production and consumption of
> desktop or portable devices based on h
Here's an idea. As an alternative to wrestling with resource heavy
applications directly, implement heavy taxation on consumer device
computational power. That is, tax production and consumption of
desktop or portable devices based on how much they exceed the set
limits of computational power and e
>/dev/null
On 13 June 2017 at 18:30, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Now I reallize that I deeply lacked tact: that question was highly
>> unapropriate.
>
> You are unappropriate.
>
Does reading this mailing list make anyone want to do anything but
drink heavily to forget?
On 6/13/17, Cág wrote:
> So, to summarise:
>
> Browsers suck because web sucks
> C++ sucks
> Android sucks
> Python sucks
> Java sucks
> Javascript sucks
>
> In other news the sky is blue, water is wet and snow is white.
No, you suck.
> Now I reallize that I deeply lacked tact: that question was highly
> unapropriate.
You are unappropriate.
sylvain.bertr...@gmail.com:
> worst: it is an obvious troll.
>
> going to shorten it:
>
> He's right, computer systems are ultra-secure: viruses and hacks (software and
> hardware) are a very rare thing, they do not happen all the time, at best this
> is an illuminaty conspiracy to make us beli
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 07:56:46PM +0100, Cág wrote:
> So, to summarise:
>
> Browsers suck because web sucks
> C++ sucks
> Android sucks
> Python sucks
> Java sucks
> Javascript sucks
>
> In other news the sky is blue, water is wet and snow is white.
>
This is not obvious to many, especially if
>They both suck in their own, unique, horrible ways. Comparing them is
>like comparing turds and vomits.
It gets even worse when they are combined.
For example Android System WebView is almost 170mb of Java and C++
bloat used to run web bloat from the comfort of other bloated apps
So, to summarise:
Browsers suck because web sucks
C++ sucks
Android sucks
Python sucks
Java sucks
Javascript sucks
In other news the sky is blue, water is wet and snow is white.
--
caóc
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 07:39:28PM +0200, hiro wrote:
> this is not a philosophy list, go back to school please.
worst: it is an obvious troll.
going to shorten it:
He's right, computer systems are ultra-secure: viruses and hacks (software and
hardware) are a very rare thing, they do not happen
On June 13, 2017 7:39:28 PM GMT+02:00, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> this is not a philosophy list, go back to school please.
You are right. I fooled myself into believing it was for some technical
reasons.
this is not a philosophy list, go back to school please.
On 6/13/17, Josuah Demangeon wrote:
>
>
> On June 13, 2017 7:29:14 PM GMT+02:00, sylvain.bertr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Only fools believe in computer security.
>> I'm not one of them.
>
> I am curious about the reasons as I am a total beginn
On June 13, 2017 7:29:14 PM GMT+02:00, sylvain.bertr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Only fools believe in computer security.
> I'm not one of them.
I am curious about the reasons as I am a total beginner
in that domain. Do you mind to develop about it ?
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 07:12:59PM +0200, Kamil Cholewiński wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, sylvain.bertr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > You are being unreasonable here: you are presuming that "computer security"
> > does exist... but it does not.
>
> Software does not exist either for that matter, it's j
On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, sylvain.bertr...@gmail.com wrote:
> You are being unreasonable here: you are presuming that "computer security"
> does exist... but it does not.
Software does not exist either for that matter, it's just a pattern of
arbitrarily encoded 0's and 1's.
"Today a young man on acid
https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/
https://you-get.org/
Since when python3 is suckless?
To run those, you need that pile of sh*t which is python. Why not ruby? lua?
perl? js? php? haskell? squirel? etc... while we are it.
--
Sylvain
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 05:17:54PM +0200, Kamil Cholewiński wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [...] android is doing the right thing: it separates processes by
> > running them as separate users. [...]
>
> Every respectable OS/distro packages daemons to run as separa
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 10:57:16AM -0400, Calvin Morrison wrote:
> Android is a moving target but this is 'suck-less' right?
Is this a joke? A basic troll attempt?
--
Sylvain
On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...] android is doing the right thing: it separates processes by
> running them as separate users. [...]
Every respectable OS/distro packages daemons to run as separate users.
Every respectable piece of software separates privileges and uses
s
this is stupid. the reason i brought this up is to make clear that
android and linux don't need to be so different, you got it the wrong
way around, i.e. android is doing the right thing: it separates
processes by running them as separate users. the semantic was always
there, but it's something lin
On 13 June 2017 at 09:29, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> linux supports multiple users for permission management.
A hassle at best, quirky at worst. I'd rather have per process permissions.
> on android nothing works either. apps often require random libraries
> like google play services to be
linux supports multiple users for permission management.
on android nothing works either. apps often require random libraries
like google play services to be installed and are generally written by
comparatively incompetent programmers.
android is a moving target.
On 6/13/17, Calvin Morrison wrote
>> > For youtube, we agree 100%, but it seems that the javascript/modern web
>> > engine
>> > combo is used as a kind of DRM... namely the dependency by complexity is
>> > _on
>> > purpose_ (see the user agreement of youtube: you MUST use the
>> > javascript/modern
>> > web engine video player.
Kamil Cholewiński wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, sylvain.bertr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > When mentioning souldcloud, I usually refer to the "sound editing" feature.
>
> As a person that does most of his music making in plain old analog
> (including a tape recorder), I miss the point of having a web
> However not without labor on the part of the developer.
check the script i posted on this mailing list before that doesn't
require any labor on part of the developer since i posted it.
On 6/13/17, Kamil Cholewiński wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, sylvain.bertr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> When mention
On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, sylvain.bertr...@gmail.com wrote:
> When mentioning souldcloud, I usually refer to the "sound editing" feature.
As a person that does most of his music making in plain old analog
(including a tape recorder), I miss the point of having a web service
doing audio stuff, i.e. what
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 12:06:38PM +0200, Kamil Cholewiński wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, sylvain.bertr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Ofc, some internet sites do provide services which are hard dependent
> > on a rich GUI (I usually mention soundcloud).
>
> Actually audio and video playback these days c
On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, sylvain.bertr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ofc, some internet sites do provide services which are hard dependent
> on a rich GUI (I usually mention soundcloud).
Actually audio and video playback these days can be done with pure HTML
markup, which is sufficient for a completely bare-b
On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 02:19:08PM +0200, Hiltjo Posthuma wrote:
> Coming back to the real practical world: until then I try to keep my
> (personal)
> HTML pages simple[5] and use as little Javascript as possible (no jQuery!).
A noscript web portal should be mandatory for the web sites which the
On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 01:30:12PM -0700, Louis Santillan wrote:
> base, I disagree with the choice of nodejs & Qt), could make web
> browsing . . . better, safer, more performant.
c++ only based components: it's not suckless then, by definition.
It's already game over before it even starts.
--
i will so install you guy's facebook app
:D
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Bobby Powers wrote:
> Rendov Norra wrote:
>> Yes, remote arbitrary code execution is already the norm. And if you
>> ask me, is precisely the reason Web browsers suck as much as they do.
>> Maybe it could be done well, but you'll have to forgive me, I've been
Rendov Norra wrote:
> Yes, remote arbitrary code execution is already the norm. And if you
> ask me, is precisely the reason Web browsers suck as much as they do.
> Maybe it could be done well, but you'll have to forgive me, I've been
> burned too many times.
Fun fact, arbitrary code execution is
CSS+HTML+a user can implement rule 110 [0]. Key part is the user,
since CSS cannot iterate rule 110 on its own. This is not to say that
HTML/CSS is exempt from criticism, just that javascript is far worse
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2497146/is-css-turing-complete
On 6/12/17, Calvin Morris
> Also HTML/CSS is not code that is executed or interpreted, it's a
> markup language, a description of a document. Plugins are also not
> remote arbitrary code execution, they are local code execution, code
> you have control over.
Last time I checked, CSS is turing complete
Yes, remote arbitrary code execution is already the norm. And if you
ask me, is precisely the reason Web browsers suck as much as they do.
Maybe it could be done well, but you'll have to forgive me, I've been
burned too many times.
Also HTML/CSS is not code that is executed or interpreted, it's a
On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 5:19 AM, Hiltjo Posthuma wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 01:30:12PM -0700, Louis Santillan wrote:
>> https://youtu.be/1uflg7LDmzI?t=5m35s
>>
>> James Mickens calls it Project Atlantis.
>
> I could not find any Project Atlantis code, do you know where to find it?
I haven't
You have remote arbitrary code execution now (because of HTML, CSS,
JS, and plugins) in your current web browsers. However, if the remote
code was effectively constrained (yes, a difficult problem [0][1][2]),
there could be hope.
The code bloat of others isn't something you have to worry about.
T
I fail to see how remote arbitrary code execution is a feature. Maybe
I'm missing something.
I suppose in essence it would suck less in that there'd be fewer APIs,
but you'll just get the same lazy code and bloat that most software
exhibits, but with the ease of visiting a webpage.
On 6/10/17, Lo
no
On 6/11/17, Alba Pompeo wrote:
> W3C is not the only organization working on standardization.
> Any opinion on WHATWG? Is it a little better?
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Hiltjo Posthuma
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 01:30:12PM -0700, Louis Santillan wrote:
>>> https://you
W3C is not the only organization working on standardization.
Any opinion on WHATWG? Is it a little better?
On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Hiltjo Posthuma wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 01:30:12PM -0700, Louis Santillan wrote:
>> https://youtu.be/1uflg7LDmzI?t=5m35s
>>
>> James Mickens call
On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 01:30:12PM -0700, Louis Santillan wrote:
> https://youtu.be/1uflg7LDmzI?t=5m35s
>
> James Mickens calls it Project Atlantis.
I could not find any Project Atlantis code, do you know where to find it?
> Make the web/content developers responsible for their own rendering
> a
On 10 June 2017 at 19:24, wrote:
>> there are no interesting web browsers or web browser concepts.
>
> hiro just discovered a very interesting radical approach to fixing the
> web: if there were no web browsers, the web would be pointless and thus
> would not need to be fixed.
I have mailed you
> there are no interesting web browsers or web browser concepts.
hiro just discovered a very interesting radical approach to fixing the
web: if there were no web browsers, the web would be pointless and thus
would not need to be fixed.
there are no interesting web browsers or web browser concepts.
On 6/10/17, Louis Santillan wrote:
> https://youtu.be/1uflg7LDmzI?t=5m35s
>
> James Mickens calls it Project Atlantis. Make the web/content
> developers responsible for their own rendering and content parsing.
> Narrow & simplify the
https://youtu.be/1uflg7LDmzI?t=5m35s
James Mickens calls it Project Atlantis. Make the web/content
developers responsible for their own rendering and content parsing.
Narrow & simplify the scope of what a browser needs to be (shouldn't
duplicate all the functions of an OS). His Deny First Same O
55 matches
Mail list logo
