A husband. A father. A senior software engineer. A video gamer. A board gamer.

  • 0 Posts
  • 106 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 15th, 2023

help-circle






  • ulkesh@beehaw.orgtoProgramming@programming.devOOP is not that bad
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    In my experience, as a 25-year developer in mostly OOP languages and frameworks, is that people who attack OOP usually don’t really understand it and its usefulness.

    And to be fair as it relates to attacking languages or language concepts, I attacked JavaScript without fully understanding it, many years ago. I now understand it more than I ever have in the past and it has some good qualities.

    So these days it’s no longer the languages or language concepts I take issue with (though I’ll joke about JavaScript from time to time). It’s the developers who misuse or misunderstand the languages or concepts that irk me. And especially the developers who think being lazy is a virtue.



  • ulkesh@beehaw.orgtoLinux@lemmy.mlA word about systemd
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    This article sounds a decade old.

    systemd attempts to cover more ground instead of less

    Have I got news for the author about the kernel he seems to have no issue with. (Note: I love the Linux kernel, but being a monolith, it certainly covers more ground instead of less, so the author’s point is already flawed unless he wants to go all Tanenbaum on the kernel, too)



  • ulkesh@beehaw.orgtoOpen Source@lemmy.ml*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    It’s strange to me that if the guy has such a problem with how open source software works (such as his code being used (ideally with license being followed), bugs, pull requests, etc), why did he not just keep it closed source?

    Seems to me he either didn’t understand how open source works, or he got in way over his head.

    You’re right, though, best to ignore.








  • I didn’t say it was more secure, I said it’s about the same.

    The difference is a person being forced to go to a website to download software means more steps and more time to consider the safety of what they’re doing. It’s part psychological.

    Not all such packages are retrieved from GitHub, I remember downloading numerous .deb files direct over the past 25 years (even as recent as downloading Discord manually some years back).

    The main point I’m making is that you should legally protect yourself, it’s a low and reasonable effort.


  • It’s a cool concept, but automation breeds laziness (by design, to an extent) and lazy end users tend to shoot themselves in the foot. So it isn’t great for security, but it also isn’t that much worse for security :)

    Since some people with money tend to be litigious, and, of course, I am not a lawyer, I would advise a warning message (or part of the license if you don’t want to muck up your CLI), if you don’t have one, to force the user to accept and acknowledge that the software they are installing using this tool is not verified to be safe.