Governments triggered this entire discussion with their papers and plans to strengthen cyber defenses. The article states that some experts ask for our industry to be more regulated in this regard.

I am surprised that possible regulations are not even listed as a factor that in the decission to stay with C++ or move to something else.

Sure, COBOL is still around after decades, but nobody ever tried to pressure banks into replaceing that technology AFAICT.

So you see C programmers as sabotaging public infrastructure?

It is all about whos freedom you care for: GPL protects the freedom of end users, MIT and other permissive licenses focus on the freedoms of developers instead.

GPL defines freedoms end users of software have. It has to limit the freedoms of developers between the GPL project and the end user so that those developers can not strip out any of the freedoms the GPL wants end users to have. The hope is to build a better society by enabling everybody to understand the machines they own.

MIT and other permissive license care for the freedoms of people using the project directly, granting freedoms to those users only. Those people are free to forward the same rights to their own users or to remove them as they see fit. Thatbis way simpler for developers to work with: Basically do whatever you want.

Guess which option is more popular with developers and the companies that employ many of those developers?

Where are those "many of us"?

It is what the CI uses for testing. If several layers of people decide to not do their job and you have no hardware in your network that announces the DNS servers to use like basically everybody has, then those CI settings might leak through to the occassional user. Even then, at least there is network: Somebody that can't be arsed to configure their network or pick any semi-private distribution will probably prefer that.

Absolutely no issue here, nothing to see.

Why? Slab sysv-init (or openrc or s6) and the gnu tools the onto it and you will hardly be able to tell the difference :-)

That is actually the thing I like about systemd: They expose a lot of linux-only features to admins and users, making the kernel shine.

Why would he? It never was an issue.

Are they embracing activity pub? I read it is just one guy in the community working in it.

And the vast majority of users are on GitHub, looking for code on there. Having activity pub on other forges will not change that big time:-(

An update is only truly done once no remnants of the old code is in memory. Code can stick around in the form of binaries (restart the binaries), libraries (restart all binaries that use this library) and the kernel (reboot or use kexec).

One very simple way to make sure no old code sticks around is to reboot:-)

The basics are all the same:. memory, cpus and caches in between ;-)

But rust does approach many things very differently from C or C++. Learning those new approaches takes time and practice.

Yeap, it is always the same set of poorly researched links that get pasted in threads like this.

Unix philosophy, evil corporate interests, insecure, bloated, entangled mess... it is these individuals thatbhave seen the light, notnthe silent majority that does all the work in distributions and when developing software that kind of opted withbtheir feet.

Librewolf

Maintaining a browser is a huge endeaver. Using some random browser that is maintained by a a lone person or maybe even a handful of developers basically guarantees that the whole thing is insecure. This is especially true when keeping functionality around that was removed in the "main" browser to improve security there. One example is the old plugin system that firefox replaced with a more secure one with less hooks into the core engine, breaking some old plugins.

Stay with mainstream browsers folks and install some plugins to improve them that way. At least you get patches asap.

I did tick that, since I saw text boxes and went "give me everything" without reading:-)

Fixed. Thank you for pointing this out.