WingNews logo WingNews GitHub [2]

ran3824692's comments

ran3824692 | 4 years ago | on: Killed by Microsoft

A "content" tag claims "A full list of dead products killed by Microsoft in the Microsoft Cemetery" but all I see is metadata and a javascript tag. Where is the content?

     <!DOCTYPE html>
     <html lang="en">

     <head>
         <meta charset="UTF-8">
         <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0, maximum-scale=5">
         <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="ie=edge">
         <meta name="description"
             content="Killed by Microsoft is the Microsoft Graveyard. A full list of dead products killed by Microsoft in the Microsoft Cemetery.">
         <link rel="shortcut icon" href="assets/favicon.png">
         <meta name="theme-color" content="#FAFAFA" />
         <link rel="canonical" href="https://killedbymicrosoft.info" />
         <title>Microsoft Graveyard - Killed by Microsoft</title>
         <meta name="image" content="https://killedbymicrosoft.info/assets/social/card.png">
         <!-- Schema.org for Google -->
         <meta itemprop="name" content="Killed by Microsoft">
         <meta itemprop="description"
             content="Killed by Microsoft is the Microsoft Graveyard. A full list of dead products killed by Microsoft in the Microsoft Cemetery.">
         <meta itemprop="image" content="https://killedbymicrosoft.info/assets/social/card.png">
         <!-- Twitter -->
         <meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image">
         <meta name="twitter:title" content="Killed by Microsoft">
         <meta name="twitter:description"
             content="Killed by Microsoft is the Microsoft Graveyard. A full list of dead products killed by Microsoft in the Microsoft Cemetery.">
         <meta name="twitter:site" content="@killedbygoogle">
         <meta name="twitter:creator" content="@killedbygoogle">
         <meta name="twitter:image:src" content="https://killedbymicrosoft.info/assets/social/card-twitter.png">
         <!-- Open Graph general (Facebook, Pinterest & Google+) -->
         <meta name="og:title" property="og:title" content="Killed by Microsoft">
         <meta name="og:url" property="og:url" content="https://killedbymicrosoft.info">
         <meta name="og:description" property="og:description"
             content="Killed by Microsoft is the open source list of dead Microsoft products, services, and devices. It serves as a tribute and memorial of beloved services and products killed by Microsoft.">
         <meta name="og:image" property="og:image" content="https://killedbymicrosoft.info/assets/social/card.png">
         <meta name="og:site_name" property="og:site_name" content="Killed by Microsoft">
         <meta name="og:type" property="og:type" content="website">
     </head>

     <body>
         <div id="killedbygoogle"></div>
         <script src="main.js"></script>
     </body>

     </html>

ran3824692 | 5 years ago | on: Wikimedia is moving to Gitlab

That is not the core of the problem. Spammers are humans, and sometimes they will solve recaptchas in large quantities to get their spam through. Its about having a multipronged approach for administrators to stay ahead of them. For some examples of free solutions see https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Combating_spam. It's even possible to connect spamassassin to forms. Gitlab needs tools and automation that detects and rolls back spam, bans users, knobs to tune restrictions and rate limits based on how spammers are acting. Gitlab inc just hasn't seemed to care much to help people trying to use Gitlab and keep their software freedom.

ran3824692 | 5 years ago | on: Wikimedia is moving to Gitlab

invent.kde.org uses the nonfree google Recaptcha, that prevents it mostly. Not very nice for KDE to make people run nonfree software blob in their browser that gives up their freedom, gives up their privacy to google and trains Google's proprietary machine learning models.

ran3824692 | 5 years ago | on: The terms of the AGPL are pretty easy to comply with

The point people keep talking about here as risky are: what is a derivative work, and what constitutes complete and complete corresponding source definition. Both of those things HAVE been tested. complete corresponding source definition is the same in gplv3, almost exactly the same in gplv2. Derivative work is a general copyright thing tested in many cases. The extra paragraph doesn't have anything to do with them. To recap: 99% of the license is tested, and the "risk" everyone is discussing are about the parts that have already been tested. Basically, what Drew wrote is true.

ran3824692 | 5 years ago | on: The terms of the AGPL are pretty easy to comply with

> They do, however, very often use existing language, and custom language is minimized.

Guess what, AGPL does that too. Its only 1 paragraph different than GPL.

> Where contracts are often almost entirely standard per-company

"standard per-company", means custom and used used throughout the company. That doesn't make it less risky, and its not like these things don't constantly change and are hugely complicated, just look at privacy policies. AGPL is standard for all companies.

> And very rarely is the company in danger from the non-boilerplate clauses.

Citation needed.

ran3824692 | 5 years ago | on: The terms of the AGPL are pretty easy to comply with

AGPLv3 is exactly the same as GPLv3 except that it adds 1 paragraph. That paragraph has nothing to do with corresponding source or what a derivative is. Google ships distros with Gplv3 to customers GCP, so Borg and GCP stuff would be equally affected by the "risk to Borg" and other server side code, so, I don't believe that the claimed legal risk is real, just FUD.

ran3824692 | 5 years ago | on: The terms of the AGPL are pretty easy to comply with

Corresponding source has the exact same definition in GPLv3 and almost exactly the same in GPLv2, so all this "its completely untested" thing is completely disingenuous. Google uses Borg to control gplv3 code that they also distribute, so, exactly the same case and its complete BS you are spreading. Lawyers are actually pretty good at spreading FUD about GPL, they always have been.

ran3824692 | 5 years ago | on: Teachers are ready to quit rather than put their lives at risk

I went to a high school in Cali that was converted to a charter school. As far as I could tell, the main change was that they kicked out all the kids with poor grades or other problems. That is the polar opposite of "choice", it was about increasing inequality and it was completely disgusting.

ran3824692 | 5 years ago | on: Britain gave Palantir access to sensitive COVID-19 patient records in £1 deal

> in a way that puts formal limits on what they can do with it and how long they have access to it, and I as the patient have both the right and technical ability to revoke that access

If that's what SOLID is, its a scam and more of his DRM promotion. There is no technical way to "revoke my access." Unless you have a memory erasing implant in my brain, if the data gets onto my screen, I can copy it and access it forever. Period. Fuck Tim Berners-Lee.

ran3824692 | 5 years ago | on: I think my BBQ just offered to be my default browser?

> In the context of the early Web, should we have prevented any company from making their own website?

Well, websites are now a bundle of arbitrary remote code execution called javascript, we didn't allow that, so by today's standards, ya we did.

> Enforced some standard for how your website UX should work in the name of security and usability?

Well, html, so ya, again, ya we did. And we could again. A lot of the functionality of apps simply don't justify requiring you to run a program.

ran3824692 | 6 years ago | on: Security Architecture Anti-Patterns

Top comment "This is pretty unhelpful", ya, requiring running nonfree javascript to learn about security anti-patterns is an antipattren. Fuck corn, fuck bread.
page 1
more