81–90 of 107 posts
Anyone who bashes open source code for bugs is an idiot. Maybe the "community" should start auditing code instead of blogging and tweeting about how awful things are. This functionality has been around for so long it is generational. +1 to the person(s) responsible for finding this. Everyone complaining should stfu
I think this post misses the point. It is notoriously difficult to write robust code for most varieties of unix shell. This has been the case for decades. It's a bad situation and the GNU project's attempts to remedy it (e.g. Guile) haven't got any traction. It is an embarrassment.
In times of Github and low-entry barrier participation, GNU sticks to the old ways like a dinosaur - petrifying.
It reminds me a little of vim, as bash, it has a really old code base, old-style function headers (not ANSI C). For Vim it took a github-based fork (neovim) to get a big community on board, establish tests and perform the necessary refactoring. All of this is great, just as the work of the founders of these programs. The criticism is not aimed at the work that was done by the "founders" of these landmark programs, but the stagnation of development and refactoring.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are hundreds, maybe thousands of programs that make up a full open source system and frequently they are maintained by different groups of people with very different situations as regards to motivations and funding. There's no reasonable way that anyone outside of a few big tech companies can possibly review all of these and ensure that funding is distributed appropriately.
We are talking about bash here. There is no mystery about who to donate to. GNU has a pretty good approach to the problem you describe.
I think that bashing bad code , bad practices and whatever lead to any security-critical bug (and any bug whatsoever, for that matter), should happen. If there weren't rants, flame wars and insults in the free software movement, I guarantee it wouldn't have come near where it is today. It's a big part of what drives innovation in all spheres, not just this one: the harsh (and not-so-harsh, sure) comments, the passive…
I see many people calling him out not for making a mistake, but for downplaying its significance when confronted with its full ramifications. I agree that mistakes happen. But someone who deserves respect, in my opinion, owns up to mistakes and tries to get them fixed. Someone who downplays the mistakes in order to save face deserves nothing from me.
Anybody know Bryan Lunduke? He's a guy giving talks called "Linux sucks" in which he basically bashes Linux for 20 minutes and then concludes that Linux is the best FOSS OS community because they can take the bashing (get it?). He's been giving these talks for quite a while now. Everybody knows Theo de Raadt is crazy (and Stallman isn't) and of course everybody knows Apple fanboys tear up every time somebody implies…
This is the exact problem with everything today. Languages do not make bugs, people do. If that weren't the case, there wouldn't be bugs is python/ruby/shell/etc.
Rewriting something is only guaranteeing that more bugs be created initially. And all the time and effort gets you..what? The same thing that was just patching in a different language. Awesome...
You should be familiar with "bikeshed" being a freebsd user..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't that violate freedom 0?
How does it violate your freedom to warn you of a serious danger? The fact is they didn't know bash would execute code found in arbitrary application-defined variables. And that is why GNU calls it a bug.
I think this post misses the point. It is notoriously difficult to write robust code for most varieties of unix shell. This has been the case for decades. It's a bad situation and the GNU project's attempts to remedy it (e.g. Guile) haven't got any traction. It is an embarrassment.
I really love the idea of GNU, yet the FSF seems to more interested about "principles" than shipping good code and empowering collaboration. In times of Github and low-entry barrier participation, GNU sticks to the old ways like a dinosaur - petrifying. It reminds me a little of vim, as bash, it has a really old code base, old-style function headers (not ANSI C). For Vim it took a github-based fork (neovim) to get a…
GNU is primarily a political project, not a software project.
If you want software that puts code quality ahead of politics then you should look to one of the BSDs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're missing the point. The GNAA is built to offend worthless parasites who contribute nothing to the world. Social justice whiners, socialites, et al. Such garbage deserve no respect. Stallman is the antithesis of worthless parasitism. Stallman spent his entire life selflessly giving to the world, and the world gave him nothing but disdain in return. He's truly a prophet, like Diogenes or Ezekiel. He deserves resp…
Was Kathy Sierra garbage?
Anybody know Bryan Lunduke? He's a guy giving talks called "Linux sucks" in which he basically bashes Linux for 20 minutes and then concludes that Linux is the best FOSS OS community because they can take the bashing (get it?). He's been giving these talks for quite a while now. Everybody knows Theo de Raadt is crazy (and Stallman isn't) and of course everybody knows Apple fanboys tear up every time somebody implies…
"There are loads of tools that should have never been implemented in C/C++ in the first place (SSH, Make, APT, etc.). I'd say the best idea is to port a lot of these code bases to languages like Go or Rust maybe, but if that's not feasible for some reason, at least write some unit tests and do static code analysis." This is the exact problem with everything today. Languages do not make bugs, people do. If that weren'…
Right. That's why it's a good idea to use languages that help people to avoid common mistakes.
> Rewriting something is only guaranteeing that more bugs be created initially.
Neither of us has empirical evidence for that (or maybe you do, I don't know), but let's say your right. A rewrite would at least give us a sane way to move forward (see the first item on my list).
> You should be familiar with "bikeshed" being a freebsd user..
I'm voting blue.
---
Given that you're a Linux user, you should be familiar with Einstein's definition of insanity. :P
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stopping reading because someone said something offensive is not an adult behaviour, so the irony here is palpable. Read the fucking article.
The problem is not being offensive but being childish. The vocabulary used gives you a hint about the level of arguments you are about to read, and if you read the rest of the article, you realize that the author of the post is indeed quite immature.
His account of his gay hacking incident is interesting. How could he possibly know it was gay people who flagged his posts ? That's either paranoia, ironic trolling, or homophobia. I thought maybe he was just trolling when he says that gay people flagged him, but after reading the Lisa Simpson post above, I think he might actually believe it.
No intelligent person would do drugs like heroin if they did a little research and understood about neurotransmitter receptor downregulation. Basically, doing any drugs (including alcohol, caffeine or nicotine) will downregulate your neurotransmitter receptors for up to 2 weeks after a single dose (depending on the amount), resulting in the exact OPPOSITE effect of the drugs for up to 2 weeks afterwards. (With chronic use, the downregulation can take years to reverse).
In summary, he is one truly fucked up dude due to the drugs.