On 2018-02-14 00:27, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > It's not so much that we've produced a generation of bad coders who
> > don't know better, the problem is no one cares about anything other
> > than $$$ in america any more.
>
> What do you mean, "any more"? Wasn't it ever thus?
When I arrived in
On Tuesday, 13 February 2018 21:50:28 GMT
mad.scientist.at.la...@tutanota.com wrote:
> It's not so much that we've produced a generation of bad coders who don't
> know better, the problem is no one cares about anything other than $$$ in
> america any more.
What do you mean, "any more"? Wasn't
No, i don't mean Nick, he gave a correct and honest analyses. I mean people
who lie and obfuscate on behalf of their' employer and encourage people to use
products they know are grossly defective, people who think comingling code and
data is acceptable practice, mostly because it makes their'
On 2018-02-13 22:50, mad.scientist.at.la...@tutanota.com wrote:
> seriously, can we try to keep these corporate schills the hell off the
> list?
I guess you mean the core kernel devs, who after all wrote the page
quoted by Nick?
If you feel that way maybe switch to a BSD kernel?
--
Please
Sorry Mick, that was directed at the original poster of this disinformation.
Not sorry about the venom for the original corporate whore.
mad.scientist.at.large (a good madscientist)
--
God bless the rich, the greedy and the corrupt politicians they have put into
office. God bless them for
That is specious reasoning at best. The jit option requires that you allow
mixed instructions/data in memory, which leaves you open to a lot more than
spectre. The problem is you've (Red Hat) sold people a bill of goods with java
jit, the solution is for people to write proper code and
On Tuesday, 13 February 2018 02:18:33 GMT Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 13/02/18 03:31, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> > On 2018-02-13 03:13, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> >> Apparently, and contrary to what people (me included) wrote here in
> >> the past, BPF JIT is the secure option, and the interpreter
On 13/02/18 03:31, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
On 2018-02-13 03:13, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
Apparently, and contrary to what people (me included) wrote here in
the past, BPF JIT is the secure option, and the interpreter is the
insecure one.
Do you have a reference for this? It sounds strange
On 2018-02-13 03:13, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> Apparently, and contrary to what people (me included) wrote here in
> the past, BPF JIT is the secure option, and the interpreter is the
> insecure one.
Do you have a reference for this? It sounds strange indeed.
--
Please don't Cc: me privately
On 12/02/18 11:51, Adam Carter wrote:
$ grep . /sys/devices/system/cpu/vulnerabilities/*
/sys/devices/system/cpu/vulnerabilities/meltdown:Mitigation: PTI
/sys/devices/system/cpu/vulnerabilities/spectre_v1:Mitigation: __user
pointer sanitization
10 matches
Mail list logo
