291–300 of 337 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Distros come with sudo. Scripts assume sudo. Complexity exists there.
solved long ago. https://github.com/jirutka/doas-sudo-shim/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely false. I have built tons of tools which are feature complete and continue to work to this day without intervention. Heck, I even have tools I no longer use that people asked me to keep available because they do, and they’ve been chugging along for over a decade, no bugs or maintenance necessary. Just today I saw a report of Adobe discontinuing a tool in use by professionals because it is done and they don’…
> Just today I saw a report of Adobe discontinuing a tool in use by professionals because it is done and they don’t know what else to add. Yeah, I'm sure the reason stated by the customer support is the real one, and not the lack of profitability from that tool among a shift of focus towards AI[0] as reported everywhere. https://techcrunch.com/2026/02/02/adobe-animate-is-shutting-... > for over a decade, no bugs or m…
Oh, but it's so much more beautiful than that! You're really underselling it! It's not "the reason stated by the customer support", it's:
The reason snarkily paraphrased by a Mastodon post Which quotes a Twitter post Which quotes a Bluesky post Which tells a story about a conversation with an Adobe customer service rep.
Surely that tongue-in-cheek Mastodon post increases the information that we have about this incident by exactly Zero.
Reading the release history[1]. I'm kind of shocked that sudo gets active development and monthly releases. I would have thought that something this old and venerated would have been "done" long ago. 1: https://www.sudo.ws/releases/devel/
I was wondering the same thing. I would have thought every possible combination of parameters would have been tried by now. I guess it just goes to show you that your code is never really complete.
Yes and no, feature bloat usually justify themselves innocently and once you go down that slope there is no return.
The hardest thing to do in software is commit yourself to a set of feature and protect it from any "helpful additions", naming might be the second hardest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can demand payment but it doesn't mean you'll get paid. These days companies will clone your work instead of paying.
Releasing open source software and then “demanding payment” goes against everything about open source. If someone expects to be paid for the use of their software, releasing it as open source is not what they want. If a maintainer of a software project starts trying to demand payment or threatening to change license terms, it’s a reasonable response for a company to fork it or build their own solution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Done" software is a myth they tell to young developers so that they can sleep easy at night.
Absolutely false. I have built tons of tools which are feature complete and continue to work to this day without intervention. Heck, I even have tools I no longer use that people asked me to keep available because they do, and they’ve been chugging along for over a decade, no bugs or maintenance necessary. Just today I saw a report of Adobe discontinuing a tool in use by professionals because it is done and they don’…
That tool is still very much in active use in my industry, and we'll need to figure out what to do with some 10000 fla files that we need to occasionally edit and republish (hint: the solution probably involves a certain Swedish software repository).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
how does the metaphor of stolen valor (in my understanding: claiming accolades or military credentials/decorations that one never received) apply to that project? I don’t know anything about the history here; it’s a genuine question.
Authors of useless rewrites do: * skip the hard part: designing, getting user feedback and designing again; * get straight to the fun part: coding in their favorite language after a well-established and proven design; * get to call themselves "creator of XXX-rs", where "XXX" is a well-known brand and "-rs" is often overlooked.
would it be better if they didn't have fun coding it? is something worse if it was fun to make?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it not? A suid binary installed on pretty much every Unix system ever seems pretty critical to me.
Living without it isn't hard IMO. It's more of a convenience. Most of the servers I ever login to only have one non-root user anyway. When I need root, I switch to root.
Reading the release history[1]. I'm kind of shocked that sudo gets active development and monthly releases. I would have thought that something this old and venerated would have been "done" long ago. 1: https://www.sudo.ws/releases/devel/
"Done" software is a myth they tell to young developers so that they can sleep easy at night.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
how does the metaphor of stolen valor (in my understanding: claiming accolades or military credentials/decorations that one never received) apply to that project? I don’t know anything about the history here; it’s a genuine question.
Authors of useless rewrites do: * skip the hard part: designing, getting user feedback and designing again; * get straight to the fun part: coding in their favorite language after a well-established and proven design; * get to call themselves "creator of XXX-rs", where "XXX" is a well-known brand and "-rs" is often overlooked.
Pedantically, the “stolen valor” metaphor absolutely doesn’t fit here; you’re just griping about the “sudo brand” being used in another project’s title (which … citation needed, and so what? Is “doas” not committing theft but “sudo-improved” is?)
More generally, that’s an easy case to make against any software you don’t like: “it’s just reimplementing $whatever and trying to pretend to be the original therefore it’s unethical”. Some rewrites are good, and a huge benefit of the act of rewriting is that you do have a clear blueprint and understanding of the requirements (hell, Linux was a rewrite). Should the original creators of a thing be the only people who can ethically rewrite it? Where’s the line here?