Confusingly, Docker now has a product called "Docker Sandboxes" [1] which claims to use "microVMs" for sandboxing (separate VM per "agent"), so it's unclear to me if those rely on the same trust boundaries that traditional docker containers do (namespaces, seccomp, capabilities, etc), or if they expect the VM to be the trust boundary.
> the word `self` is not special in any way (it's just convention - you can call the first param to a method anything you want).
The name `self` is a convention, yes, but interestingly in python methods the first parameter is special beyond the standard "bound method" stuff. See for example PEP 367 (New Super) for how `super()` resolution works (TL;DR the super function is a special builtin that generates extra code referencing the first parameter and the lexically defining class)
> In addition, you may not use any of the Marks as a syllable in a new word or as part of a portmanteau (e.g., "Gitalicious", "Gitpedia") used as a mark for a third-party product or service. For the avoidance of doubt, this provision applies even to third-party marks that use the Marks as a syllable or as part of a portmanteau to refer to a product or service's use of Git code.
> Please be aware that GitHub and GitLab are exceptions to this Policy because they are subject to explicit licensing arrangements that pre-date, and thus take precedence, over this Policy.
That seems pretty normal to me. Try this thought experiment. Suppose I make an accessory that adds an ironing board to the back of F150 trucks[1] and I call my company “Fordboard”? Do you think that portmanteau is a trademark violation or not? I think Ford probably would fight and win against me if I did such a thing, in particular because I am using the registered mark (Ford) to refer to the actual thing so I can’t pretend that’s just a coincidence. That is also the case here with gitclassic. If I called my guitar shop that I might have more of a leg to stand on.
Well you aren't referring to a truck or even a vehicle. However I agree that your example product is intimately related to the trademarked item just as it is in this case. That's exactly why I'm wondering about precedent. It seems overly broad to me, a layman, but could well be the established status quo.
I would naively expect it to depend on whether the mark could reasonably be confused by a customer with the name in question. To that end fordboard and gitclassic seem problematic since they read like two separate words, one of which is the protected mark. In contrast, something like gitea seems like it ought to be in the clear - no one is ever going to think "git [space] ea huh wonder what ea by git is". (Ford should totally release a vehicle under the name Board that would be hilarious.)
> it is better when there is an overlap in the distinctive sound of the two words.
From the article you linked - this matches my intuition and is largely why I feel like gitea ought to be in the clear. Unfortunately it seems to be about trademarking portmanteaus as opposed to the creation of portmanteaus using one or more trademarks. (More is better - my next terrible idea is gitzurite.)
If they had developed a technique to get a modern C++ compiler and rustc to generate exactly the same output for any program (even a trivial one) I think that would be huge news and I would love to see all the linker hacking that would involve.
Last time I used them - Ghidra, and to some extent IDA, had UXes that were very difficult for new users to pick up and frequently deviate from standard expectations for modern desktop apps because they have two decades of baggage. In contrast binary ninja is very easy to explore and has many fewer surprises.
I explicitly stopped this habit so that I don't accidentally do it with sensitive data I don't want to go to my search engine provider's auto complete API.
Disabling remote search autocomplete is one of the first things I do when I setup a new browser instance. It's a privacy and security nightmare I don't want.
Same here. And I just noticed yesterday that Firefox had added and enabled a "Suggestions from sponsors" feature. Which I've now disabled, but presumably it's been sending anything I type into the address bar to Mozilla since 2021. I am tired of Mozilla but Chrome is very much worse.
ETA: I only noticed yesterday because a "sponsored suggestion" popped up when I was typing, which I've not seen before. So either they actually enabled it recently, or advertisers don't bid on the kinds of things I usually type.
At most I want the address box to do is look up a dns name. Which can still be a risk if I were to hit "enter" with sensitive information which could in some cases get pushed out to my DNS provider (which is me, but then it's possible the address would be pushed out to another resolver, and will also be logged in an unexpected place)
I've never really understood why it's a thing to use a telnet client for transmitting text on a socket for purposes other than telnet. My understanding is that telnet is a proper protocol with escape sequences/etc, and even that HTTP/SMTP/etc require things like \r\n for line breaks. Are these protocols just... close enough that it's not a problem in practice for text data?
Because for a long time, on most computers, the telnet client was the closest thing to an "open a tcp socket to this ip/port and connect the i/o from it to stdin/stdout" application you can get without installing something or coding it up yourself.
These days we have netcat/socat and others, but they're not reliably installed, while telnet used to be generally available because telnetting to another machine was more common.
These days, the answer would be to use a netcat variant. In the past, telnet was the best we could be confident would be there.
In corporate environments, netcat was often banned as it was seen as a "hacking" tool. Having it installed would sometimes get the attention of the security folks, depending how tightly they controlled things.
The telnet protocol with escapes, etc. is only used by the telnet client if you’re connecting to the telnet port. If you’re connecting to HTTP, SMTP or something else, the telnet protocol is not enabled.
The point is not that this particular binary is huge, the point is that we tend to strip images of anything that is not useful for the actual application shipped. So we strip everything. Also: small things adds up. On AI prompt can be handled reasonably by a single machine, millions of concurrent ones involve huge datacenters and whole energy plants being restarted/built.
The point of reducing the amount of binaries shipped with the image is also to reduce the amount of CVEs/vulns in your reports that wouldn't be relevant for your app but woulld still be raised by their presence.
Thanks, sounds like a recent development. I don't use macOS, but on other peoples macOS computer it was always there, even when they are not developers. But it could very well be that these computers are ten years old.
I mean technically MS Windows 10 is ten years old, but the big upgrade wave to 10 only happened like 4 years ago, which is quite recently. Maybe that is similar to macOS users, I don't know that.
[1]: https://www.docker.com/products/docker-sandboxes/
reply