Maybe I’m being stupid but a trivial way to ensure this is just don’t connect it to the Internet in any way. No SIM card. Cut it off from the Internet after setup, and only connect to a LAN with your chosen services all physically isolated from any internet machines.

It says it’s available for both Intel and Arm architectures. However, I don’t know how well that actually works for both of them in practice.

It would have to be written by sane people.

Surprised not to see meta-classes or package management on this list.

I’ve worked on ground systems and it’s actually come in handy two times in five years, usually where we had a hard-to-reproduce bug. Getting the info when the problem happens can occasionally be all the difference.

Addendum: And usually we didn’t care about performance. Basically never.

When I left my last job they were using the zip file method for version control and one creative developer managed to link two versions of libc at the same time.

Software is so useful that the standard for utility is extremely low.

We test AND develop in production. Get on my level.

Way cool! Might actually try it sometime.

Docker performs some syscall filtering as well which may reduce the kernel attack surface. It can be pain to set up services this way, but it could help frustrate an attacker moving laterally in the system.

Processes in the container cannot see external processes for example as I think interested the OP.

What does this sometimes appear not to work for me even though the command is clearly in the history?

There’s actually good reasons for this design. It’s easy to write a Scheme interpreter, but it’s hard to write a C compiler that handles everything correctly. Much rather write it in higher level language if possible and Scheme lowers the bar to getting there.

Then you can write your C compiler in C and close the loop. For your final step, you use the C compiler to compile itself.

I saw a Scheme interpreter written in assembly running a C compiler written in Scheme.

Truely. Copyright terms are absolutely ridiculous and massively too long for their intended goal.

I’d really like to see an improvement through copyright reform. Copyright periods are already ridiculously too long, but after a game runs its financial course, I think everyone should be free to do with it as they please. At a fundamental level, wasn’t this the intent of a functional copyright system? Is it not the intent to allow the creator to benefit while balancing the value against social good?

Thank you! I never knew about that site before.

Ever received a Slack or a teams message that’s just your name but no context as to what’s actually needed? Like they need to confirm you’re there but don’t want to reveal why they’re asking.

“John.”

Problem is whether or not I’m present has a lot to do with the question.

I’m pretty sure I’ve had this exact conversation. Took me a minute to understand what the point was.

IDS will catch that. You need a logical sled that does effectively nothing but isn’t actually composed of NOPs.

I’ve played open source games that assign ownership of the code to one person, but they operate like an open source project and anyone can use the source however they wish. It depends on how that owner chooses to license the code.

Worse sacrifices have been made in the face of a deadline.