131–140 of 152 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI is decidedly not the answer. Formal verification is the answer, and tooling around it.
My impression is that making everything formally verified is a lot of work and it would be very hard to make formally verified code as easy to write as non-verified code.
This is why I don't run any Electron apps on my computers at all, ever. That means I'm stuck with the web browser version of Slack, Skype, Signal (going away), and so forth, which is a shame. But it's better than the security nightmare that is Electron. I wish developers wanting to make cross platform GUI applications would look instead at Qt. It's extremely easy to use, really fast, and generates great GUIs. It's be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cross-platform GUI development has always been fraught, though. I don't blame people for picking an existing, working (mostly) technology that guarantees (mostly) identical results across lots of platforms.
Cross-platform GUI development in general is a dumb idea. The user chose a specific platform and expect applications to follow that platforms UX guidelines. Building a cross-platform app is basically saying you don't give a fuck about your customers. It's an insult to your users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As soon as I saw the title I suspected the exploit was probably markdown related The title literally says "from Markdown to remote code execution" what else were you expecting?!
The title was changed after the original post.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My argument is that it takes a few hours to make a look and feel for swing that mimics the appearance of modern electron apps. Also that Qt has plenty of styling power. Blizzard's app is a "really bad app" just because you have a personal problem against it. It works pretty well on my PC (0.5% CPU and 130Mb ram) and I think it looks pretty nice.
Lots of people dislike the Blizzard app but if you like the Blizzard app or spent 5 hours beating a single Swing frame into looking like a web app with questionable typography, we probably have very different (subjective) notions of what a decent-looking app is. What you did say is that Qt or Swing apps looking bad cannot be further from the truth. If that were the case, you should be able to rattle off dozens of bel…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cross-platform GUI development in general is a dumb idea. The user chose a specific platform and expect applications to follow that platforms UX guidelines. Building a cross-platform app is basically saying you don't give a fuck about your customers. It's an insult to your users.
So you're saying software OEMs need to pick one of Windows or MacOS and not support any other platforms?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cross-platform GUI development in general is a dumb idea. The user chose a specific platform and expect applications to follow that platforms UX guidelines. Building a cross-platform app is basically saying you don't give a fuck about your customers. It's an insult to your users.
I'll venture a guess, most devs, most applications, do not exist to give their users delightfully crafted UI and UX with handmade animations . Most applications are really crude in their design, and do not target large international hip demographics.
If you didn’t even take the effort to get your interface with your user (read: customer) right, how lazy did you get with the parts of the app I can’t see ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apparently there's a reason because VS Code (and Atom) is way more useful than any other editor built over last few decades.
Unsure how to quantify this kind of hyperbole. Compared to SublimeText 2 which is outdated at this point, VS Code and Atom are only getting back to the standard of fast code editors from the last few years ... If you go back a few decades, you're competing against vi/vim and emacs, and there's no way you can say VS Code (and atom) can go against the "usefulness" or even productivity of either of those editors and the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
when it works for containers, it would have worked just the same for shared lib, but with one less step. containers: update the lib, rebuild. sane software: update the lib. now, to the complicated case which containers claim to solve, when the lib update breaks compatibility. container: update lib, application dont compile, leave like that because we think we are not vulnerable anyways. sane sotware: update lib, appl…
Sort of. You are missing the ephemeral of containers, which has a net security advantage. Ephemeral containers mean that its harder for an attacker to obtain persistence, and easier to cycle out and swap bad containers than it is to patching servers. I would argue that container orchestration infrastructure is objectively more secure than plain old servers; I get where you are coming from, but this tech is solving re…