* Jan Nieuwenhuizen [2021-04-14 11:27]:
> Jean Louis writes:
>
> > * Jan Nieuwenhuizen [2021-04-08 16:43]:
> >> Martin writes:
> >>
> >> > Maybe freedom in "free software" shouldn't require from the code to be
> >> > open neither. Let's just blindly trust some saint developers who
> >> >
Jean Louis writes:
> * Jan Nieuwenhuizen [2021-04-08 16:43]:
>> Martin writes:
>>
>> > Maybe freedom in "free software" shouldn't require from the code to be
>> > open neither. Let's just blindly trust some saint developers who
>> > cannot even control their own binaries. Actually today we are
* Jan Nieuwenhuizen [2021-04-08 16:43]:
> Martin writes:
>
> > Maybe freedom in "free software" shouldn't require from the code to be
> > open neither. Let's just blindly trust some saint developers who
> > cannot even control their own binaries. Actually today we are closer
> > and closer to
* Jan Nieuwenhuizen [2021-04-08 23:47]:
> Jean Louis writes:
>
> > * Jan Nieuwenhuizen [2021-04-08 16:43]:
> >> Martin writes:
> >
> > From https://bootstrapping.miraheze.org/wiki/Stage0
> >
> >> Design
> >
> >> Stage0 starts with only 1 thing:
> >
> >> 1) A sub 500 byte hex monitor [How you
* Jan Nieuwenhuizen [2021-04-08 23:40]:
> >> The bootstrappable project, GNU Mes and GNU Guix are working to fix that
> >>
> >>
> >> https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog/2020/guix-further-reduces-bootstrap-seed-to-25/
> >> https://fosdem.org/2021/schedule/event/gnumes/
> >
> > Janneke, that is
Jean Louis writes:
> * Jan Nieuwenhuizen [2021-04-08 16:43]:
>> Martin writes:
>
> From https://bootstrapping.miraheze.org/wiki/Stage0
>
>> Design
>
>> Stage0 starts with only 1 thing:
>
>> 1) A sub 500 byte hex monitor [How you create it is up to you; I like
>> toggling it in manually myself]
* Jan Nieuwenhuizen [2021-04-08 16:43]:
> Martin writes:
>
> > Maybe freedom in "free software" shouldn't require from the code to be
> > open neither. Let's just blindly trust some saint developers who
> > cannot even control their own binaries. Actually today we are closer
> > and closer to
Jean Louis writes:
> * Jan Nieuwenhuizen [2021-04-08 16:43]:
>> Martin writes:
>>
>> > Maybe freedom in "free software" shouldn't require from the code to be
>> > open neither. Let's just blindly trust some saint developers who
>> > cannot even control their own binaries. Actually today we are
* Jan Nieuwenhuizen [2021-04-08 16:43]:
> Martin writes:
>
> > Maybe freedom in "free software" shouldn't require from the code to be
> > open neither. Let's just blindly trust some saint developers who
> > cannot even control their own binaries. Actually today we are closer
> > and closer to
* Martin [2021-04-06 12:22]:
> > From practical viewpoint, among milions and millions of users, when it
> > comes to validating compiler, they would have to validate the
> > reproducible build with comparison to something. Benefits of
> > reproducible builds thus depend of number of people
Martin writes:
> Maybe freedom in "free software" shouldn't require from the code to be
> open neither. Let's just blindly trust some saint developers who
> cannot even control their own binaries. Actually today we are closer
> and closer to that sad scenario like never before in the history,
>
On 4/6/21 7:40 AM, Jean Louis wrote:
* Jacob Bachmeyer [2021-04-06 05:39]:
Exploits are easier to develop when hardcoded offsets, virtual addresses,
etc. can be used. In a "binary monoculture" environment, that is possible.
This contributes to and worsens security problems in proprietary
* Jacob Bachmeyer [2021-04-06 05:39]:
> Exploits are easier to develop when hardcoded offsets, virtual addresses,
> etc. can be used. In a "binary monoculture" environment, that is possible.
> This contributes to and worsens security problems in proprietary software,
> which is almost always
13 matches
Mail list logo
