cultural reviewer and dabbler in stylistic premonitions

  • 114 Posts
  • 163 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: January 17th, 2022

help-circle





  • Why memorize a different command? I assume sudoedit just looks up the system’s EDITOR environment variable and uses that. Is there any other benefit?

    I don’t use it, but, sudoedit is a little more complicated than that.

    details

    from man sudo:

    When invoked as sudoedit, the -e option (described below), is implied.
    
           -e, --edit
                   Edit one or more files instead of running a command.   In  lieu
                   of  a  path name, the string "sudoedit" is used when consulting
                   the security policy.  If the user is authorized by the  policy,
                   the following steps are taken:
    
                   1.   Temporary  copies  are made of the files to be edited with
                        the owner set to the invoking user.
    
                   2.   The editor specified by the policy is run to edit the tem‐
                        porary files.  The sudoers policy  uses  the  SUDO_EDITOR,
                        VISUAL  and  EDITOR environment variables (in that order).
                        If none of SUDO_EDITOR, VISUAL  or  EDITOR  are  set,  the
                        first  program  listed  in the editor sudoers(5) option is
                        used.
    
                   3.   If they have been modified, the temporary files are copied
                        back to their original location and the temporary versions
                        are removed.
    
                   To help prevent the editing of unauthorized files, the  follow‐
                   ing  restrictions are enforced unless explicitly allowed by the
                   security policy:
    
                    •  Symbolic links  may  not  be  edited  (version  1.8.15  and
                       higher).
    
                    •  Symbolic links along the path to be edited are not followed
                       when  the parent directory is writable by the invoking user
                       unless that user is root (version 1.8.16 and higher).
    
                    •  Files located in a directory that is writable by the invok‐
                       ing user may not be edited unless that user is  root  (ver‐
                       sion 1.8.16 and higher).
    
                   Users are never allowed to edit device special files.
    
                   If  the specified file does not exist, it will be created.  Un‐
                   like most commands run by sudo, the editor is run with the  in‐
                   voking  user's  environment  unmodified.  If the temporary file
                   becomes empty after editing, the user will be  prompted  before
                   it is installed.  If, for some reason, sudo is unable to update
                   a file with its edited version, the user will receive a warning
                   and the edited copy will remain in a temporary file.
    

    tldr: it makes a copy of the file-to-be-edited in a temp directory, owned by you, and then runs your $EDITOR as your normal user (so, with your normal editor config)

    note that sudo also includes a similar command which is specifically for editing /etc/sudoers, called visudo 🤪














  • as a mod/admin, i would appreciate being able to edit post titles. there have been a fair number of times where i asked a poster to do so, and then waited a while for them to before deleting the post if they don’t.

    and/or, it would be nice to have a way for us to temporarily semi-delete a post while waiting for OP to make requested changes to it; that is, to hide it from the community view but leave it visible to people with the URL, or people who find it via the user profiles of the poster or commenters in it.

    editing titles would be awkward without an edit history or, at the least, a way to see that some 2nd party had edited it, and editing post bodies would be even more so. but it would make sense and be useful with an edit history, i think.

    i would also appreciate having content addressability, portable identity, composable moderation, and… perhaps a pony 😂













  • cross-post of my comment elsewhere:

    I immediately knew this was going to be from Microsoft users, and yeah… of course, it is.

    Binaries distributed under this EULA do not meet the free software definition or open source definition.

    However, unlike most attempts to dilute the concept of open source, since the EULA is explicitly scoped to binaries and says it is meant to be applied to projects with source code that is released under an OSI-approved license, I think the source code of projects using this do still meet the open source definition (as long as the code is actually under such a license). Anyone/everyone should still be free to fork any project using this, and to distribute free binaries which are not under this EULA.

    This EULA obviously cannot be applied to projects using a copyleft license, unless all contributors to it have dual-licensed their contributions to allow (at least) the entity that is distributing non-free binaries under this EULA to do so.

    I think it is extremely short-sighted to tell non-paying “consumers” of an open source project that their bug reports are not welcome. People who pay for support obviously get to heavily influence which bugs get priority, but to tell non-paying users that they shouldn’t even report bugs is implicitly communicating that 2nd and 3rd party collaboration on fixing bugs is not expected or desired.

    A lot of Microsoft-oriented developers still don’t understand the free software movement, and have been trying to twist it into something they can comprehend since it started four decades ago. This is the latest iteration of that; at least this time they aren’t suggesting that people license their source code under non-free licenses.







  • Arthur Besse@lemmy.mltolinuxmemes@lemmy.worldthe perfect browser
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    The three currently-maintained engines which (at their feature intersection) effectively define what “the web” is today are Mozilla’s Gecko, Apple’s WebKit, and Google’s Blink.

    The latter two are both descended from KHTML, which came from the Konquerer browser which was first released as part of KDE 2.0 in 2000, and thus both are LGPL licensed.

    After having their own proprietary engine for over two decades, Microsoft stopped developing it and switched to Google’s fork of Apple’s fork of KDE’s free software web engine.

    Probably Windows will replace its kernel with Linux eventually too, for better or worse :)

    How else are Chrome, Edge, Brave, Arc, Vivaldi and co getting away with building proprietary layers on top of a copyleft dependency?

    They’re allowed to because the LGPL (unlike the normal GPL) is a weak copyleft license.