nickelpro

Intel's response was:

> Timing exploits has been known to the security community since the mid-nineties. From a real world standpoint the attack is not practical.

And this is basically the state of the art today, even with Spectre. You can demonstrate the vulnerability under controlled conditions but having those conditions arise in production is not practical in the engineering sense.

The author says:

> This has taken a backseat, as I now believe that there is something more important than license: community. The community around a software project is what dictates the values of the project. A strong copyleft license does still signal that the project cares about software freedom, but, by itself it is not enough.

I don't care about community at all, the license is the only thing that has any "signal" when comes to someone caring about software freedom. If you release all your code as GPL (or MIT, or Apache, etc), you care about software freedom. Nothing is more important than the license.

The list of bullet points the author then provides are completely irrelevant to "caring about software freedom".

Of course, but any of those people making a copy of the code can be the ones to decide to build a community around it.

Fabrice Bellard doesn't need to personally administer to the ongoing development and community functions of QEMU or ffmpeg, it is sufficient that he released the code as open source, and others carry the torch from there.

And if people disagree about the form those communities take, they can split them as they see fit. As happened with libav and ffmpeg for a number of years. This too is fine, and is only possible because of the license.

If I publish my code under an open source license, you are free to take it and build any community around it you want.

If I keep my code proprietary, you are beholden to the shape of the community I dictate.

The license is first, it precedes, any notion about community.

[citation-needed]

People don't loudly announce they're not going anywhere and not changing anything, of course you only perceive the ones who do otherwise.

It doesn't mean they there's a wide spread trend.

Restaurants, bars, and other meeting places largely sucked until 2005. Tea and coffee houses barely existed.

I don't ever host anyone in my tiny city apartment, we go out. It would be far worse to "host at home". There a places dedicated to hosting, it's a service, why would we not engage with that service?

Spending 3 hours at Qahwah and then wandering over to Port Sa'id is not some lesser experience than doing it all at home. If anything it's a much better experience

This is a short thesis saying you shouldn't use a personal email account for marketing, ad, or press campaigns. Doing so places that personal email account at risk of closure.

"This work" which is being "accelerated" in GP's quote is "the work underway to improve GitHub’s reliability". It is not new features.

Do you think the load is going away?

The current infrastructure cannot handle the new load requirements. Either the infrastructure must change, or they must start denying users the ability to use the infrastructure.

I would never write such a low information, generic, sentence to begin with.

AI writing is rife with high-level, generic language. AI prose rarely addresses concrete concerns, instead preferring hedged generalizations. The "It may A, B, and C, but it will not X, Y, and Z." Where both lists are broad categories instead of specific mechanisms is a calling-card of AI prose.

A human identifies and addresses specific concerns. They need not hedge with "may", because they are stating known facts to support their premise, and an argument from those facts follows naturally.

"The OpenAI API requires tokenization in proprietary format, unavailable and unusable by other providers. Deepseek and Anthropic are following suit."

I do not think the whole article is AI generated. I do not think this was a simple prompt of "Write an article about proprietary chat session formats". However, much of the rhetoric is either LLM drafted or had an LLM pass over it.

"A transcript should contain the instructions, messages, tool calls and tool results. Another sufficiently capable model might not continue identically, but it could understand what happened and take over."

This is so obviously AI generated it is painful. Once or twice in an article is rhetorical flourish, but the entire text is inundated with it.

> it is tacit consent for an unfinished solution

No. It is cutting unused features to make a manageable product.

* "That won't work on GCC 5.5." We don't support GCC 5.5, or any compiler which wasn't shipped this decade.

* "What about FreeBSD?" What about it? We only have Linux servers

* "This only works on systemd." Good, we're a systemd shop.

"None of the deployments under consideration for this new initiative use that mechanism, that other deployments might is irrelevant to the internal product we are building"

In my space this is usually something like, "X won't work on POSIX make", being a reason not to add X to the build system. Well, it works on Ninja, and on GNU make, so it just won't work on POSIX make and the handful of deployments still using POSIX make just won't use X.

"We're not trying to build a perfect solution here" is not something said to assuage over-engineering or encourage sloppy work.

It's said to head off a specific complaint from a specific kind engineer who will object that the proposed solution won't work because it doesn't cover some obscure edge case which rarely comes up in production.

"We're not trying to build a perfect solution here" is saying "We acknowledge not everything will be covered, we're setting the requirements at the 90th percentile use case".

They aren't. This is a Windows quirk. Most IDE extensions which interface with git (or any other CLI program) from the CWD are "vulnerable" to the same attack.

This is why the upstream didn't take it seriously, this has been known for literal decades.