tmsr - Search: i

30800+ entries in 0.205s

phf: but i remember diana_coman saying something about her code not compiling in ave1's because interfaces.c is not included. i'm not sure if she was talking about the former or the later

phf: oh i was talking about the later, since that's the avant guard of the ada situation

phf: or is tmsr ada whatever ave1 put into his musl build, which is, worse, a political situation. diana_coman can argue for her ffi stuff to be included, should i be arguing for my get/put stuff to be included? ☟︎

asciilifeform: ( though yes, eventually i would like to codify the subset as a standard in own right. )

asciilifeform: ( i.e. one where you can dispense with all vendorisms )

phf: asciilifeform: oh yeah, i get it, the approach requires a GOST cpu with a GOST bus etc. etc. right now the situation is mildly depressing (though perhaps that's not the right word), even Ada standard turned out to be dodgy (very precisely specifies some shitty solutions) ☟︎

asciilifeform: phf: i do know, yes, that the standard was stunted at birth.

phf: you should know that common lisp standard is not the whole, but rather the top, i.e. the commonality of features between multiple lisp machines. there are parts that explicitly under specified to allow for a variety of behaviors

asciilifeform: phf: i cannot show you, as it does not mention every possible abuse, lol

asciilifeform: i had this experience prior, with 'mathematica', and was reluctant to repeat it, so largely avoided serious use of the closed lisps.

phf: allegro is batteries included, and if they're not they'll add the batteries for you, so for most practical purposes you don't need to fuck with quicklisp and the variety of dodgy quicklisp packages. but allegro generally made a lot of, i don't know how to put it, old skill lisp-machine-y decisions to make sure your development experience is superior. instead of being sticklers for the standard, and not venturing outside of it, they kept adding nooks an

phf: well lispworks has capi, that doesn't have an non-proprietary equivalent, so if your work requires any kind of gui, you're stuck with some very dodgy solutions (in the early days i even used emacs/slime as a gui backed by ccl) ☟︎

asciilifeform: phf: i suspect that the diff could be accounted for by diff in problem domains; but i did not find the advantage to be 'immense'

asciilifeform: phf: in commercial work i use things that would turn the strongest stomach. now, as always, speaking of civilized work. ☟︎

phf: are you talking in the context of tmsr, or your commercial work? i had both of them bought at some point, back in my common lisp consulting days it was a no brainer, the cost was always a small fraction of the contract, but the technical advantage immense. but then i don't have the source code for many things that i make my food with ☟︎

asciilifeform: both dead to me nao. i never signed the pact for the src, and i won't use today a compiler for which i lack src, full stop.

asciilifeform: see, i easily get'em confused, had 1 bought Officially back in usgschwitz, and other -- warez.

phf: but i also don't know how you get the source from lispworks, if at all. they have a fixed price list though.

a111: Logged on 2018-07-18 00:33 asciilifeform: http://btcbase.org/log/2018-07-18#1835659 << iirc allegro was moar complicated than this, tho tbf i am unsure whether less or ~more~ scammy . it was a nonfixed price (no cost for src actually but had to 1) be existing customer and 2) sign seekricy contract ) and price of being customer in turn wasn't 'fixed' ( 'lispworks' co. iirc charged royalties ) . as for 'specified', this was 1 of the rare products where yes specified ( common l

phf: http://btcbase.org/log/2018-07-18#1835681 << in allegro's case the model was (is?) a vendor partnership, they don't sell to all comers. you have to have a sit down where you essentially pitch your project to them and work out a payment structure, some combination of buy in, royalties, etc. similar to some of the banking vendors i worked with, like kx ☝︎

phf: http://btcbase.org/log/2018-07-18#1835696 << i believe at least in the case of allegro the ownership is the dks/symbolics model (or perhaps soekris model), guy who made it sells it and there's enough sales money to periodically fund developers, add new features, etc (considering that some of the contracts are finance and gov) ☝︎☟︎

diana_coman: oh, I see; lol

a111: Logged on 2018-07-18 02:01 mircea_popescu: http://www.dianacoman.com/2018/07/17/discriminatory-code-sharing/ << i'd say this is broadly correct ; though i somewhat disagree with both ave1's take (as in http://btcbase.org/log/2018-07-17#1835508 ) as well as diana_coman implict take here ( say in "hat they decide to do with it, if anything, is of course their own call entirely." ) in the following limited sense :

diana_coman: http://btcbase.org/log/2018-07-18#1835801 -> right, I can see that reading although it wasn't my point; by "their call" I mean that they get to evaluate (through whatever process, possibly including "what is wrong with you" or anything else) and decide, not that they ignore upfront ; how would ignoring of author even make sense if code is not ignored ? ☝︎

esthlos: http://btcbase.org/log/2018-07-17#1835578 << my dad's favorite! (I like demonished man, neh) ☝︎

esthlos: http://btcbase.org/log/2018-07-16#1835265 << anyone willing to audit my converage and see if I'm doing an ok job? ☝︎

mircea_popescu: for which reason i don't think we're to take lightly the author.

mircea_popescu: but still, i think the proper view of the matter is in the vein of how romans regarded testaments. because really, every published anything's a will.

mircea_popescu: and so if some guy publishes some piece of software saying "and this is to be used on sundays only", the proper decision before the republican is "do i use it on sundays or do i not use it at all ?". none of this bars discussion, "what the fuck is wrong with you, reiser ?!" nor in extremis "fu, i'll use it when i use it", nor even "in my considered opinion your sunday's my wednesday" reinterpetation.

a111: Logged on 2018-07-17 04:44 ave1: And the whole thing affirms the power/status of the Lords. I.E. when an author goes against a Lords wishes or AWOL it is then in the power of that Lord to contact another author and give him the source etc.

mircea_popescu: http://www.dianacoman.com/2018/07/17/discriminatory-code-sharing/ << i'd say this is broadly correct ; though i somewhat disagree with both ave1's take (as in http://btcbase.org/log/2018-07-17#1835508 ) as well as diana_coman implict take here ( say in "hat they decide to do with it, if anything, is of course their own call entirely." ) in the following limited sense : ☝︎☟︎

mircea_popescu: i always thought the 80s verbiage about "capitalism more adaptable" was a fucking riot.

asciilifeform: erry arcade i've ever been to actually worked like this

mircea_popescu: it's not done irl very much because http://btcbase.org/log/2018-07-17#1835457 ; but if i go to the arcade i'd much prefer an arcade where "you owe us 0.03 cents for electricity + roof ; and 1 dollar because you suck at throwing these damned darts" ☝︎

mircea_popescu: now ~a portion of that~ can very well be kicked back to client authors, if nothing else to cover the significant effort of eg a complete reskining. which'd give the player the benefit of "do i want to play this game looking like high fantasy or scandalous nudity"

a111: Logged on 2018-07-17 17:13 lobbes: http://btcbase.org/log/2018-07-17#1835608 << this was a key piece I was missing as well. For some reason I thought scheme was 'lock down production of binaries so as to allow authors to work out their own pay-for-client mechanism.' Whole thing makes way more sense to me nao

mircea_popescu: http://btcbase.org/log/2018-07-17#1835611 << no ; the idea is that there will be separation between objective costs of running (passed on to the client in the shape of food necessities to keep character alive -- starve it long enough and it dies) and the implicitly risky nature of euloran activity. i don't want to get into detail here, but i believe it's the correct approach, allocation, rather than trying a pauschal approac ☝︎

mircea_popescu: asciilifeform well i suppose this is basically the thing here -- a relaxation allowing specified mechanisms for a specified sort of "work in confidence" to still count.

asciilifeform: aha, i have 0 argument against 'author oughta be able to decide to work on proj with selected group in confidence' , why would i.

asciilifeform: i've read some possibly asciilifeform-able selections from it ( diana_coman's mpi ) , to date that's iirc all

a111: Logged on 2018-07-17 16:04 asciilifeform: Mocky: i in fact do not have objection to it either way, it is a stylistic decision for diana_coman & mircea_popescu , not mine to make

mircea_popescu: anyways, yes, i guess there's that, yes. but i mean whom does it cost ? the people owning the code, not you.

mircea_popescu: lol i misread, "it costs for instance that you don't want to travel with laptop."

asciilifeform: hanbot: nobody cancelled 'need to know'(tm) and other traditional mechanisms of prolonging life of seekritz. but i find it worrisome that mircea_popescu seems to think that keeping coad confidential doesn't cost anything. it does cost.

hanbot: anyway no, i don't see a way out of the "problem".

a111: Logged on 2015-11-16 21:01 ascii_field: would let you wander off to wherever spies go when a war is over. You know why?' he said. 'No,' I said. 'Because you could never have served the enemy as well as you served us,' he said. 'I realized that almost all the ideas that I hold now, that make me unashamed of anything I may have felt or done as a Nazi, came not from Hitler, not from Goebbels, not from Himmler — but from you.' He took my hand. 'You alone kept m

asciilifeform: hanbot: of all the possible problems, i can't picture how this, enemy already has all the incentive one could wish for to 'try to work into l1'

a111: Logged on 2018-07-16 15:44 mircea_popescu: thoughts plox! (and i specifically want everyone to say at least an ack, so let's page asciilifeform ave1 ben_vulpes BingoBoingo danielpbarron diana_coman hanbot lobbes mod6 phf spyked trinque )

hanbot: http://btcbase.org/log/2018-07-16#1834927 << one think i haven't seen mentioned yet is that this creates a potential security risk, inasmuch as there'd be a real incentive for bad actors to attempt working their way into l1 solely to gain access to source code. ☝︎

mircea_popescu: i believe ; but it's a heuristic past its use by date.

asciilifeform: then i've nuffin.

mircea_popescu: if it operates but poorly i suppose the argument could be brought mocky's good reputation is being stained ; however it's so damned easy to check.

mircea_popescu: i mean... ?

mircea_popescu: i suppose at the furthermost it could result in 1. luser installing that ; 2. luser being displeased with shitclient performance ; 3. luser whining at mocky ; 4. mocky asking him to check his binary hash.

asciilifeform: $shitclient operates. which unless i misunderstand was undesirable ?

asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: i was speaking narrowly of scenario where $luser lifts $expectedhash from $officialclient and has his $shitclient feed server $expectedhash when prompted

mircea_popescu: i suppose he could root the box, but could have done that way the fuck easier than all this complex dance.

mircea_popescu: i mean... so mocky makes a client, i see his client works, i allocate his binaries signatures, and now evilmocky does what ? doesn't follow server comms spec ? can't connect. is smart enough to follow them, and puts the work in ? can connect, server will report expected hashes. does he distribute this thing, so user can see the hash of his program and the hash the program tells the server don't match ? suppose he does. what n

mircea_popescu: http://btcbase.org/log/2018-07-17#1835563 << i can't imagine how this could ~even in principle~ be broken. ☝︎

asciilifeform: http://btcbase.org/log/2018-07-18#1835666 << i actually have 0 handle on what makes linus tick. from his posted material he resembles archaetypical 'alcoholic with moments of clarity' ☝︎

mircea_popescu: right, because why am i paying the same % whether i wrote a hello world on top of their allegro or an ai.

asciilifeform: i dun recall their ever asking ( beyond the traditional 'industrial/academia/usg' selector )

asciilifeform: what am i missing here

asciilifeform: i dun think i've ever bought a product more exhaustively specified than allegro

a111: Logged on 2018-07-18 00:05 mircea_popescu: http://btcbase.org/log/2018-07-17#1835530 << i think it's a very stupid idea, and i don't mean this mildly, but stupid in a superlative way, because what is contemplated is a ~fixed price~ for an ~unspecified product~. this is EXACTLY like sootheby's selling "auction win tickets" whereby you get to win "any one auction". it;s like trying to implement lemon markets where they don't naturally exist, and it screams deep misunder

asciilifeform: http://btcbase.org/log/2018-07-18#1835659 << iirc allegro was moar complicated than this, tho tbf i am unsure whether less or ~more~ scammy . it was a nonfixed price (no cost for src actually but had to 1) be existing customer and 2) sign seekricy contract ) and price of being customer in turn wasn't 'fixed' ( 'lispworks' co. iirc charged royalties ) . as for 'specified', this was 1 of the rare products where yes specified ( common l ☝︎☟︎

mod6: http://btcbase.org/log/2018-07-18#1835659 << I apologize, I was just being stupid I guess. ☝︎

a111: Logged on 2018-07-17 23:52 mircea_popescu: http://btcbase.org/log/2018-07-17#1835506 << indeed, and it is quite a wonder i'm still about, right, seeing how slave mutiny could result in my being strangled overnight and therefore it already has. this is mp coming to you loud and clear from the afterlyf ?

mod6: http://btcbase.org/log/2018-07-17#1835645 << I was just thinking that over a long enough time-span, sekrets tend to not stay sekret, that's all. ☝︎

mircea_popescu: http://btcbase.org/log/2018-07-17#1835554 >> no, here we disagree. both rms AND ers lines of socialism (called "free" and "open" source in-universe) are attempting to bake in the conclusion of socialism ("everything that ever crawled out of a cunt is sacred") while allowing you to dispute the conclusions. i am not interested in their idiotic "disputations". the issue, with BOTH approaches, quite indistinguishably, is exactly ☝︎

a111: Logged on 2018-07-17 13:00 asciilifeform: http://btcbase.org/log/2018-07-17#1835518 << linus is not immortal, and i expect that he will lose control of kernel -- just as he stupidly lost control of his trademark to 'linux foundation' (y'know, with gavin on staff) -- even before dies

mircea_popescu: http://btcbase.org/log/2018-07-17#1835530 << i think it's a very stupid idea, and i don't mean this mildly, but stupid in a superlative way, because what is contemplated is a ~fixed price~ for an ~unspecified product~. this is EXACTLY like sootheby's selling "auction win tickets" whereby you get to win "any one auction". it;s like trying to implement lemon markets where they don't naturally exist, and it screams deep misunder ☝︎☟︎☟︎

a111: Logged on 2018-07-17 09:42 spyked: http://btcbase.org/log/2018-07-16#1834921 <-- I'm sold on the idea i. in particular for eulora, and ii. otherwise for it to be established on a case-by-case basis. for (i), I see nothing wrong with e.g. challenging users to reverse-engineer the client (or maybe I'm just nostalgic about game cracking/trainers).

mircea_popescu: http://btcbase.org/log/2018-07-17#1835511 << it's really not at all the intention to prevent smart people from improving on the client. if anyone looks even vaguely like he could reverse engineer his pocket flashlight or anything, i'm quite sure he'd find self in some sort of productive arrangement in short order. ☝︎

a111: Logged on 2018-07-17 04:28 ave1: I find the 'if it can happen, it will happen' a strange argument. Let's say you let a friend stay in your house while you are away for a couple of months? Yes, he could destroy the house and steal the contents, still this arrangement works and has worked for many friends.

mircea_popescu: http://btcbase.org/log/2018-07-17#1835506 << indeed, and it is quite a wonder i'm still about, right, seeing how slave mutiny could result in my being strangled overnight and therefore it already has. this is mp coming to you loud and clear from the afterlyf ? ☝︎☟︎

mircea_popescu: ave1 i dunno if you've seen the republican license btw ? not like we give out ~anything~ that's "legally" usable by the pantsuit tards.

BingoBoingo: http://btcbase.org/log/2018-07-17#1835616 << I first read this line as "negrated for itself" ☝︎

lobbes: http://btcbase.org/log/2018-07-17#1835608 << this was a key piece I was missing as well. For some reason I thought scheme was 'lock down production of binaries so as to allow authors to work out their own pay-for-client mechanism.' Whole thing makes way more sense to me nao ☝︎☟︎

diana_coman: the ~only scenario I could come up with re abusing that hash is where author of A that is less successful than known B decides somehow to distribute a doctored version of B that sends the hashes of A - it's already rather insane I'd say

a111: Logged on 2018-07-17 13:36 diana_coman: it can of course dig into binaries and get the hashes from A or B and then pretend their own code IS A or B but ..so what? i.e. author of A or B will get more money, is that bad?

asciilifeform: diana_coman: the http://btcbase.org/log/2018-07-17#1835553 formulation suggested 'protection mechanism', but i guess i've nfi ☝︎

diana_coman: I didn't even realise there was some way to see it as protection against ...what? code copying or what?

Mocky: i've also been on both sides of make / break protections (although break for fun not pay). if hash is used as protection, i see that as valid objection

asciilifeform: but i'll admit to being puzzled re what is the win from it.

asciilifeform: Mocky: i in fact do not have objection to it either way, it is a stylistic decision for diana_coman & mircea_popescu , not mine to make ☟︎

asciilifeform: Mocky: this is a q for diana_coman ? ( as i understand, it is meant to make the use of obsolete (currently published) client , moar difficult )

Mocky: asciilifeform, i get that. I read your 'realistic description' statement to mean referrer string is promisatronic protection, was asking what referrer string is protecting.

asciilifeform: Mocky: i neither develop nor play eulora, so i cannot meaningfully comment re detail

asciilifeform: BingoBoingo: i sorta assumed he'd already been shot when Officially declared 'incommunicado'

asciilifeform: BingoBoingo: i gotta say, not very informative piece, either link or paste etc these 'reports' ?

asciilifeform: if thieves could teleport, i prolly would not bother.

diana_coman: because I seriously doubt that it can't be broken so why do you bother locking it?

diana_coman: I think you take those hashes to be an absolute promise of something; they are not; they are what they are (a mechanism, not an amulet!) and clearly stated; nobody pretends anything

diana_coman: it can of course dig into binaries and get the hashes from A or B and then pretend their own code IS A or B but ..so what? i.e. author of A or B will get more money, is that bad? ☟︎

a111: Logged on 2018-07-17 02:19 asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: ( admittedly i haven't read the referenced item ) what's to stop client from sending to server the old hashes ?

diana_coman: asciilifeform, I keep getting the impression that you focus in turn on one or another aspect but not quite on the whole; I'm a bit at a loss to point out exactly where it breaks though

asciilifeform: but imho this is a decision intimately for the folx who actually wrote the thing ( diana_coman , mircea_popescu ) , i've no skin in the game

asciilifeform: diana_coman: i don't see any problem with eulora making its src members-only ( whether l1 or the 2 people who actually work on it etc ) but will admit that i still don't see what it adds, other than ceremonially. the monkey herd can still plagiarize the existing published src .