This kind of privsep makes me happy, there's separate processes for the main browser (UI), renderer, GPU, PPAPI plugins (PDF), utility (general) and now audio and network.
Each with their own unique pledge promises and unveils.
Inspect w/ ps(1) & fstat(1): https://man.openbsd.org/ps#pledge
Thanks to the xash3d OpenBSD port from -wip (https://github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip/tree/master/games/xash3d), i've been able to finally beat Half Life, 20 years later :D
Excepted a few textures issues that have been solved by restarting the game (and amdgpu misbehaving), it works very nicely.
""Stefan Sperling - Game of Trees" https://openbsd.org/papers/eurobsdcon2019-gameoftrees.pdf
@fanta Una de las cosas que podrías añadir a tu servicio de archivos compartido, es un mirror (no recuerdo las opciones de wget para no subir subdirectorios) del "CD bookshelf" the Orelly, el de los libros de programación con animalicos. Sí, algunos son viejos, pero perl5/awk/sed y demás no han cambiado una mierda.
De hecho un zip/tgz no ocuparía mucho.
Mmmmh, an #fsf approved #gnulinux distro is getting lots of ideas deisgn from #openbsd, it's called #hyperbola. They even got #xenocara imported into it. IDK if just the src or the package layout. Still , a nice idea over bloated distros with slow pkg managers and full of irks an non integration everywhere. Still ,it's far from the #openbsd base and design. For example, #openbsd's ifconfig(8) vs inetutils.
But it's a step on correctness.
thoughts on ethical software licenses
ethical software licensing is a particularly difficult one. while it would be nice to write a license saying "no hate speech" and immediately fix that issue, this is impossible. restrictions on the end user typically amount to ones with commercial impacts, such as barring the user from distributing the software. an ethical license would be much harder to codify and implement.
should licensed even attempt to address this? torvalds argues that the GPLv3 is doing too much by tackling the subject of DRM, and the linux kernel still uses v2 for this reason. a license that explicitly prevented the software from being used to harm others is a violation of the FSF's zeroth freedom.
at the same time, how do you enforce this? it's easy to know when a user is engaging in unauthorised distribution, or bypassing encryption, but things like hate speech aren't black and white.
one license that attempts to address this is the CSL, or cooperative software license. based on the peer production license, it disallows use of the software by anyone in an exploitative capitalist position, such as a CEO. this is much more clearly enforceable, but it still violates freedom 0. the peer production license is disavowed by the FSF for this reason. additionally, the license has never been tried in court, so it's unsure if it's even legally defensible.
so again, should licenses even attempt this issue? is it even possible? or should we focus on other means of maintaining ethics in software?
To me, Free Software is even more important than my Judaism.
RMS codified much of those ethics into a comprehensive whole.
I wish he had been able to see that he was harming others these ways. It's purely speculative on my part but I think if he had been younger, he might have.
He didn't, and he hurt people. He's harmed people. Its so awful :(
For that, he's been removed from the university.
I'm glad for those things. They were the right answer.
I'm still sad for the man who gave my life a sense of purpose.
I'm sad he couldn't change this about himself. The world would be a better place if he could have.
Migrating to a Pleroma instance. Please stand by.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!