The software world is littered with memory vulnerabilities and you’re here still asking for proof? You may not like Rust and that’s fine. But don’t continue propagating the attitude that got us here in the first place.

I am talking about the coreutils, not the software world... Yes, memory saftey bugs exist, but they are not the end of the world or that difficult to fix in most cases. The coreutils have been battle tested for decades. Surely it is easier to fix new bugs that are found, memory issues or otherwise, than it is to rewrite from scratch because they "might" have memory safety bugs. It is a waste of resources to rewrite the coreutils based on some ideological allergy to this specific kind of bug.

Or you can accept that it is purely a licensing issue being dressed up as a security concern.

Firefox

The backup is free for text and something like 60 days of media. You only have to pay to backup all media.

I’m sure writing their own ORM would have given them instantaneous insight into this issue and introduced no other challenges. Open source developers hate this one weird trick!

Especially for things used directly, you need to understand both, own and third party code, roughly to the same level. With own code, you only care for your own use case; with third-party — you have to kind of get everyone else's.

Depending on what you do and the dependency's scope, either way can make sense.

You’re just a bad driver;)

And it couldn’t have happened to a worse company.

Starting a new language with header files (.h)? No thanks. I’d rather leave the 70s behind.

Did a little reading on Fil-C and… “Also, it's slow – about 1.5x-5x slower than legacy C.”

So that’s dead on arrival.

Thanks for your contribution. I really like it and switched to it immediately when it came out. The initial theme was not quite right but it’s good now.

They fixed a bug on a tool that is widely used. In what world is questioning why an organization is checking in a file that you have no context on a “better question”.