cmhamill

You're probably correct, though subjectively I didn't start feeling like something was amiss until Mac OS 9, perhaps as early as 8.5.

I think OS X, as the child of NeXTSTEP and Mac OS, ended up somehow less than the sum of its parts.

I honestly can't tell if this is profound satire or contentless nonsense. Without knowing, it's impossible to discuss this.

I actually think the DNS binary protocol is a rather well-designed one, but others might disagree.

This would help immensely with converting our development process to use Docker. My hub ID is cmhamill.

The issue here is actually bricking the device. It's not your standard "do we let people hang themselves or limit the user's capabilities" debate.

A filesystem is a perfectly reasonable way to implement access to the EFI vars.

I assume folks using a smartcard for their everyday encryption are safe from these kinds of attack?

Can anyone confirm that?

If you're expecting trouble from state actors, then yes, you may want to consider other options.

kernelconcepts.de sells them and ships to the U.S.

So, the question that jumps to mind reading this is:

At what point do we acknowledge that we're re-inventing Plan 9 poorly?

I don't mean to be glib (well, maybe a little), but all of this (with some exceptions — zones and jails, mainly) feels incredibly hacked-together.

Perhaps someone paying more attention could tell me if, say, the folks working on the Linux kernel are learning the lessons from Plan 9? kernfs seems promising, at a glance, but I haven't really looked into it.

For some definition of "his basic thesis" meaning "radical misrepresentation of his basic thesis," sure.

Whether you like the ideology behind the forces at work in the American South or not, the real effect of these policies is to make the lives of the poorest and most marginalized people in these states worse. In the American South, it just so happens that this means black folks.

I don't know what you'd want out of an article on this issue, but I sure hope it wouldn't be a false rendering of the realities of the situation in the hopes of pandering to some sense of feel-good political ecumenicalism.

Does anyone have any idea why Linux has a distinction between /dev/random and /dev/urandom?

Legacy adherence to some defunct interface? Ignorance on the part of kernel devs (seems unlikely)?