tcheard
Joined 12 years ago
Joined 12 years ago
But there are valid situations where you want a request from 1 domain to be made to other domains. This is where CORS comes in.
CORS is a mechanism to loosen security, not increase it. It allows a server to say, these are the domains (outside my own domain) who can make requests. CORS headers should be set carefully so that you are only allowing the domains that should be allowed through.
This was the full sentence:
> Spending credit on crypto isn't a sign of risky behavior - spending more than you can pay off and failing to pay off what is owed is.
This part:
> spending more than you can pay off and failing to pay off what is owed is.
is equivalent to your statement:
> It most certainly is if you cannot afford to pay it off after making the purchase.
Just trying to clarify that he does actually talk about NPM and his regret about it.
He does have it in his slides.
Slide titled: "Regret: package.json", last 2 points:
> Ultimately I included NPM in the Node distribution, which much made it the defacto standard.
> It's unfortunate that there is a centralized (privately controlled even) repository for modules.
I remember getting into a massive argument with an Elementary school teacher who tried to tell me I was wrong when I told her that my country was not in fact part of the country of Australia (not just continent, but she was adamant it was part of the Australian country).
- Arizona - Hawaii (Military only) - Russia
and then it is routed through the fibre backbone.
With the SpaceX proposal there will be more ground egress points, so it will be able to get closer to the destination before grounding.
That isn't the goal at all. The goal of Minimal Version Selection is to ensure that the version selected is closest to that which was tested by the app and its dependencies.
> worth removing developer's ability to be expressive and removing security updates.
And that isn't true either. It allows the developer of both the app and its dependencies to express the version they have tested against, and still allow the developer to receive security updates by explicitly increasing the version, allowing them to test that the update doesn't create problems while doing so.
It allows for version pinning without the need for a lock file.
This is done quite successfully in other countries around the world, like New Zealand where we mainly have one infrastructure provider (selected and monitored by the Government), who must offer fair and standard pricing to any ISP who wants to add value to the network.
As a result, we have many ISP options throughout the country and competition between providers is high.
A patent grant is a good thing, you want a patent grant as a user of OSS.
The problem people have with React's patent grant is the one sided terms of the patent grant (and the fear that Facebook could hold you hostage with those terms).
> Geez, wish they would just re-license under Apache 2.0.
This would be my preference.
IMO, for the React issue, even if the issue is a paper tiger (https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/react-facebook-and-the-revok...), this puts a massive hit on Facebook's OSS credibility. Even if the fear was irrational, many people are never going to understand that now and many people won't touch any Facebook OSS because of that fear.
Facebook would probably solve a lot of that credibility loss by just re-licensing under Apache 2.0.
This GraphQL situation is different and, arguably, somewhat worse than the ReactJS BSD+Patent license issue.
The problem here is the GraphQL specification doesn't have a patent grant (unlike ReactJS, which does, but people don't like the terms of the grant). And Facebook have filed a patent for GraphQL (https://www.google.com/patents/US9646028) that has some quite broad language.
Due to the patent, and the lack of a patent grant, most GraphQL users likely infringe on Facebook's patents.
Please read: https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/using-graphql-why-facebook-n...
Why waste time advertising on competitor's websites when you can just stop them from using competitors altogether (or at least require them to use you at the same time)