at least you could keep their reviews so users could at least know if the app can be trusted.

You mean, don’t trust a flatpak uploaded by a random person, but if there are enough fake reviews, it can be trusted?

No mention of Reflection which was passed to the Core Working Group for wording review, or senders/receivers (on the library side) which was actually voted into the working paper.

Huh? There is no such alternation between new features and feature freeze releases. In fact, C++26 will very likely get reflection as a major new feature. In comparison, the biggest core language feature in C++23 was probably “deducting this (explicit object member functions)”.

The only thing that keeps Contracts out of C++26 is that they might not be finished in time (they’ll need to be handed over from Evolution to Core by the February 2025 meeting, and then make it through Core review during the summer 2025 meeting).

… except when ISO delays publication of the standard.

Can anyone explain why there is such a huge difference in some of the benchmarks: Poll, Forking, CPU Cache, Semaphores, Socket Activity, Context Switching (all Stress-NG). Can we really trust these tests?

Depends on what semantic you want. Sure, if you use a unique_ptr member, you will get a deleted copy constructor/operator - I wouldn’t consider that blowing up in my face.

And even the presented fix hurts my eyes. Should have used a unique_ptr or optional.

Yes, it’s not Open Source, but I am not sure that’s really relevant here. I see it more as a prototype implementation for something that could be standardised for C++.

The linked tweet links to the recording, but it has apparently also been uploaded to YouTube: https://youtu.be/5Q1awoAwBgQ

Also the location of known Wifi networks.

Embracing the GC

I never actually liked the GC in D as it didn’t seem to fit in with the general direction of the language, and Walter Bright in D at 20: Hits and Misses says:

Miss: Emphasis on GC

There is also lowendspirit, but in both cases you have to be very careful what you buy - not everything that is advertised there will work as advertised or will work long-term

where they will double your monthly data limit for free when you comment your order number.

where they use you to spam the forum thread (for giving away something rarely anyone has any use for)

Prepare for a humongous inrush of spam before servers patch this one.

But it’s already patched by GMX and Microsoft.

As far as I understand it, it doesn’t affect single mail servers, but only mail systems where you have separate inbound and outbound servers and the outbound servers trust the data they get from the inbound servers.

Not sure how many get the joke in “Figure 23: Typical Austrian reaction after receiving a spoofed e-mail”:

OIDA

😂

There is no reason to “hate” Ubuntu but there are better choices.

What are those better choices then (for those who currently use the non-LTS Ubuntu releases and don’t want to move to rolling releases or LTS-only releases)?

I still think Ubuntu is the best option (particularly if you want to use the non-LTS releases)

Having said that I do hate snaps and also dislike flatpaks. So what I do is just use the Firefox deb package from the PPA and the chromium package from Linux Mint. Oh, and I have actually replaced ubuntu-advantage-tools with a no-op dummy package.

Only issue is they’re stored in my server as belonging to the server user (I assume everything in those directories should belong to root and I can just use chown?) But I also don’t know if they retain the same permissions when backed up.

Not everything will be owned by root, and some of the binaries will be setuid or setgid, some might even have extended attributes (e.g. ping will usually have a security.capability attribute). /var will also have a lot of different owners.

deleted by creator

“secure alternative”? Others are not secure?