71–80 of 150 posts
I can't wait for people to start sending me dockerfiles that run these things, made from docker containers that run more of these things...
This is incredibly cool! Currently using docker as a way to easily distribute and run an open project[1], this would be great to use on top of docker Will this run ok on a Mac? (I see the feature is pending, any tests done yet?) [1] https://github.com/nicobrenner/commandjobs
Thanks! > Will this run ok on a Mac? I've managed to make it work but unfortunately not in a way that produces portable binaries. I just need to figure out how to selectively statically link some of the QEMU dependencies or write a runtime that uses Apple's VirtualizationFramework.
Folks will literally shove a container runtime, FUSE, and operating system image into a binary to avoid going to thera... learning Nix.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know it feels like being pedantic and missing the joke, but "just give me the EXE" is a terrible bug, not a feature request. Distributing unauthenticated, untraced OS-level binaries is just dangerous in the modern world. Safe app distribution requires either elaborate sandboxed runtimes (browsers) or carefully curated and maintained lists of known-safe binaries (app stores, distro package repositories). We can't be…
I wish we could have something like exes with permissions. Similar to browsers. So I could run an arbitrary executable, but the OS level APIs would be blocked unless the user allowed the given permission.
Awesome use of that rant pic. Next rant pic- When I RUN a F*ING EXE it should open a Window with the application in it you smelly nerds!!!!
I know it feels like being pedantic and missing the joke, but "just give me the EXE" is a terrible bug, not a feature request. Distributing unauthenticated, untraced OS-level binaries is just dangerous in the modern world. Safe app distribution requires either elaborate sandboxed runtimes (browsers) or carefully curated and maintained lists of known-safe binaries (app stores, distro package repositories). We can't be…
We can and should still do that for people who want it (i.e. most people). The security conscious can decline to use them, but that doesn't mean the rest of us should have a worse experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know it feels like being pedantic and missing the joke, but "just give me the EXE" is a terrible bug, not a feature request. Distributing unauthenticated, untraced OS-level binaries is just dangerous in the modern world. Safe app distribution requires either elaborate sandboxed runtimes (browsers) or carefully curated and maintained lists of known-safe binaries (app stores, distro package repositories). We can't be…
I wish we could have something like exes with permissions. Similar to browsers. So I could run an arbitrary executable, but the OS level APIs would be blocked unless the user allowed the given permission.
I have been trying to get my docker to be more distributable. Right now it's just a simple python script in a python env inside a docker container inside a QEMU container to automate a click and then netcat something.
Pretty sweet. It's only like 20GB, so pretty lightweight by modern standards.
This sounds really cool, but, doesn't work for me, on version 0.2.1: $ ./dockerc --image docker://docker.io/pivotalrabbitmq/perf-test --output yourmom $ ./yourmom 2024-03-07T03:10:54.145333Z: chown `/dev/pts/0`: Invalid argument
I can't wait for people to start sending me dockerfiles that run these things, made from docker containers that run more of these things...