Microsoft aren’t kicking people out of kernel space but expanding the capabilities in user space to minimize the reasons to need to run security components in kernel mode so they can develop and deploy solutions with minimal risk (no security vendor wants that risk when they’re running on business/enterprise machines like CrowdStrike).

Kicking everyone out of the kernel is a long journey and even Apple, who are much further along this path, still haven’t completely closed the door on kernel extensions. It’ll be several Windows versions yet before kernel drivers are no longer a thing.

Not to excuse the developer but I empathise with why they might have felt compelled to change the license.

One of the biggest pains for any open source project is distributions and packagers who package the software themselves yet make changes or configure in non-standard ways which leads to major overheads for upstream as everyone submits bug reports for bugs introduced down stream and have nothing to do with them.

I feel we, as a community, need to be more vocal about when a project has been modified from the original source for packaging or distribution (where those changes weren’t pushed upstream) to demand the project be renamed in that instance.

I feel for these small developers who do this in their spare time and find the community forcing more work on them and damaging their reputation without any fault of the developer but someone downstream who doesn’t care not want to support what they’ve packaged.

Perhaps there are other solutions? Before other projects decide to use awful licenses and infringe on rights just to try and tackle the problems created by downstream.

Nonsense. If they were perfect, wouldn’t they have used a question mark? Your judgement of character is laughable. What empirical evidence is there that they are perfect?

(How was that?)

Give it to meee

I am Jack’s comprehension of subtext.

I’m not insisting anything; stating C is not a memory-safe language isn’t a subjective opinion.

Note I’m not even a Rust fan; I still prefer C because it’s what I know. But the kernel isn’t written by a bunch of Lewis Hamiltons; so many patches are from one-time contributors and the kernel continues to get inundated with memory safety bugs that no amount of infrastructure, testing, code review, etc is catching. Linux is written by monkeys with a few Hamiltons doing their best to review everything before merging.

Linus has talked about this repeatedly over the past few years at numerous conferences and there’s a reason he’s integrating Rust drivers and subsystems (and not asking them to fork as you are suggesting) to stop the kernel stagnating and to begin to address the issues like one-off patches that aren’t maintained by their original author and to start squashing the volume of memory corruption bugs that are causing 2/3rds of the kernel’s vulnerabilities.

No idea what you’re being downvoted. Just take a look at all the critical CVSS scored vulnerabilities in the Linux kernel over the past decade. They’re all overwhelmingly due to pitfalls of the C language - they’re rarely architectural issues but instead because some extra fluff wasn’t added to double check the size of an int or a struct etc resulting in memory corruption. Use after frees, out of bounds reads, etc.

These are pretty much wiped out entirely by Rust and caught at compile time (or at runtime with a panic).

The cognitive load of writing safe C, and the volume of extra code it requires, is the problem of C.

You can write safe C, if you know what you’re doing (but as shown by the volume of vulns, even the world’s best C programmers still make slip ups).

Rust forces safe® code without any of the cognitive load of C and without having to go out of your way to learn it and religiously implement it.

Apathy is dangerous. Concerted and continued vocal distaste and increasing the visibility of these plans is the best way to respond if you disagree rather than muted apathy and sarcasm.

This slogan was from the 90s (1993/94 maybe?).

Slack and Teams have emoticons for reactions which serve the same purpose.

Internal forums are older than Slack. What’s so novel about Nintendo’s approach?

Estimates put it around 13 million sales on Steam alone. Say another 5 million from console sales combined to a guesstimate around 18 million.

Holy shit, that thing is utterly terrifying.

You evil genius.

It’s also not her but her social media team running the accounts and writing the posts. I’m sure she has final approval before post but it’s simply a vehicle to get messaging out there and that’s what a campaign team is for.

deleted by creator

Ship a new app then. Sonos already do this for older products.

Whoever the fuck thought a massive regression for every single customer was the perfect thing to deploy with no option for rollback needs to stop working in software.

Internet Archive has your back