Notices by Sun Microdevil Pte Ltd (koakuma@uwu.social)

@lain What about Dongjing

@lain Is this the one with mint?

Need noodle :blobcatreachmeltuwu:

Noodle received, now the cravings change into some nasi goreng :akkoderp:

@lain What does it signify

@nyanide I mean passing the test suite can be a fun exercise for an OS team to do but apparently getting the official title requires you to spend tons of money annually so~

@nyanide I dunno actually :hehehe:
I do feel like the UNIX certification is, for all practical purposes, meaningless, in this day and age

macOS is real, certified UNIX®, unlike off-brand products like BSD or Linux :02smug:

A lot of people in security circles seem to place heavy emphasis on authenticators:

Passwords!
Strong passwords!
Passkeys!
Multifactor auth!
Security dongles!
Biometrics!
Passkeys in dongles!
Passkeys in dongles protected by biometrics *and* passwords!

etc.

Meanwhile the average user will happily click on that big button labeled "I forgot my password" and get credentials delivered straight into their mail inbox...

Not faulting anyone for this but I feel like there's a huge disconnect happening here :02lurk:

@SuperDicq @lain I use transport that makes me swipe cards whenever I wanna go on a trip, is that bad :cirnothinking:

@lain I am the 6%

From http://tunes.org/wiki/no-kernel.html

> A term describing a system without a kernel. The idea looks like it is original as far as operating systems are concerned, but it is so natural that for any other kind of software (and one of our points is that there should be no such privileged notion as that of an "Operating System" well-separated from "Applications") where there isn't such a stubbornly overwhelming tradition, it is the very idea of a kernel that looks odd.

> Software in a no-kernel system works just like most any software: various objects interact, each doing its part of the work. The difference compared to software in kernel-based systems? No-kernel software is not limited to a single centralizing entry point like the Unix syscall() or DOS interrupts, whose overhead, limitations, bugs and misdesign you must cope with or work around. Instead, objects can directly interact one with the other, and you can upgrade/extend/modify any unlocked part of the system anytime.

:cirnothinking:

From http://tunes.org/wiki/microkernel_20debate.html

> The only possible justification for a microkernel is not technical. It's political: a microkernel is the only way to allow with any robustness the existence of black-box proprietary third-party binary modules that access and provide deep system resources without anyone having to disclose source code. Microkernels are technically the worst possible organization for system code of same functionality, and the fact that the proprietary closed-source development model encourages such horrors accounts for the deep evil behind that model. It has been suggested that a psychological reason behind the abstraction inversion is that, by a misled tradition, the "Operating System" community stubbornly refuses to mess with language issues (they claim "language independence"), and stick to designing system interfaces for bit-level languages; but we can also track this want of language "independence" to the political issue of proprietary software, since it is what induces the eager clustering of computing into hermetic fields where no one can modify or adapt (proprietary) code from other fields forces people into the paranoid "trust no one, never cooperate: even if you want to, you can't" behavior.

> Latest developments in microkernels (L4, Xok) amount to reducing as much as possible the semantics and overhead of the kernel, and putting everything in either servers or system libraries. The logical next step beyond these developments would be to reduce the microkernels to zero, naught, nada, and have everything in "modules" that constitute the system, and are high-level concepts without forcibly any obvious, one-to-one direct correspondence between the high-level compile-time modules limits and low-level run-time code barriers. Depending on the point of view, this leaves us either with "monolithic" systems, or with systems without a privileged kernel at all (such as systems built atop the Flux OSKit). Such is the right way, in our opinion: to provide high-level modular design, but without any kernel at all.

:cirnothinking:

Dang I really envy those people who can be like "I read a book every week" lole

Almost 3 month into reading a book yet I am still at page 90/242 :blobcatpeekaboo:

@loke I should do this to people sometimes :cirnothinking:

@lain @rin Milo kepal spring roll

@lain @rin SNC48 :02lurk:

Well seenggaknya ada teman-teman fedi
love you all :akkohug:

Datang ke acara beginian buat cari teman baru tapi kok rasanya pengunung di sana cuma ujung-ujungnya sesama circlenya sendiri juga

https://misskey.id/notes/a0c8bs9iet