| |
| ▲ | hedgehog 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I don't know what this has to do with locking down phones, but I do appreciate not getting compromised just for cloning a repo or opening my laptop at a coffee shop. | | |
| ▲ | sunshowers 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | (There is a persistent idea that the lack of memory safety in C is good because it allows people to jailbreak their phones.) | | |
| ▲ | uecker 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | This is not what I said, but memory safety is certainly not anything which is a high priority for my own security. I still think memory safety is important and I also think Rust is an interesting language, but... the hype is exaggerated and driven by certain industry interests. | | |
| ▲ | IshKebab 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Rust isn't popular just because of memory safety though. I think the memory safety message is maybe a little too loud. It's also a modern language with fantastic tooling, very high quality library ecosystem and a strong type system that reduces the chance of all kinds of bugs. It's obviously not perfect: compile time is ... ok, there aren't any mature GUI toolkits (though that's true of many languages), async Rust has way too many footguns. But it's still waaaaay better than C or C++. In a different league. | | |
| ▲ | uecker 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Rust is a nice language, but it pushed too aggressively with the argument of "memory safety" at all cost ignoring other considerations. And Cargo is certainly a disaster even though it may be considered "fantastic tooling" by some. In any case, I do not think it is funny that I now depend on packages without timely security update in my distribution. This makes me less secure. | | |
| ▲ | scns 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Is there better tooling in C/C++? No snark intended? | | |
| ▲ | uecker 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I guess this depends on what you consider good tooling. I am relatively happy with C tooling. But if you want to quickly assemble something from existing libraries, then language-level package managers like npm, cargo, pip are certainly super convenient. But then, I think this convenience comes at a high cost. We now have worms again, I thought those times were long over... IMHO package management belongs into a distribution with quality control and dependencies should be minimized and carefully selected. |
|
| |
| ▲ | hoppp 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | It can have supply chain attacks like npm... That high quality library system is also a liability. |
| |
| ▲ | 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | sunshowers 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'm an industry interest, in the sense that I work in the software industry and I have an interest in Rust. | | |
| ▲ | uecker 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Fair enough. I just find it mind boggling how much money flows into completely new language ecosystems compared to improvements for C/C++ tooling which would clearly much more effective if you really cared about overall security of the free software world. | | |
| ▲ | cwyers 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The issue with investing similar levels of effort into making C++ safer is the C++ standards committee doesn't want to adopt those kinds of improvements. | | |
| ▲ | uecker 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I am not interested in C++, it is also far too complex. In my opinion software needs to become simpler and not more complicated, and I fear Rust might be a step into the wrong direction. | |
| ▲ | account42 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Which is also the reason why we don't have #pragma once and many other extensions like it. Except we do. Compilers can add rust-like static analyzers without the standard committee mandating it. | | |
| ▲ | sunshowers 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | In principle, the full lifetime system of Rust can be added to C++ without committee approval, but in reality the chances seem low. |
|
| |
| ▲ | sunshowers 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Personally, I use Rust (and have been using it for close to 9 years) because I've been part of multiple teams that have delivered reliable, performant systems software in it, within a budget that would clearly be impossible in any other language. Rust acts as a step change in getting things done. |
|
| |
| ▲ | stavros 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | While I really really want devices I can own, I don't want to compromise security to do it. We need to do two things: 1. Lobby politicians to write laws that allow us to actually own the devices we bought. 2. Stop the FUD that a device that can be jailbroken is insecure. I heard this from our frigging CSO, of all people, and it's patently false, just FUD by Apple and Google who want you to be afraid of owning your device. I want a device that's as secure as possible, but that I can own. I don't want to hack my own self just to get what I paid for. |
| |
| ▲ | rcxdude 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It is a sad thing but I do root against secure boot initiatives because they almost entirely work to limit user's freedom instead of improving their security. | |
| ▲ | hedgehog 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Thanks, that take is... Something. I'm all for user-controllable hardware but I think that's a regulatory problem not a technical one. |
| |
| ▲ | account42 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | How often do you clone a repo and don't immediately run build commands that execute scripts provided by the repo. | |
| ▲ | germandiago 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Who says you do not? :) | | |
| ▲ | hedgehog 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Oh, I think it's a real problem, that's why I'm in favor of improved tools. |
|
|
|
