I thought it was somehow referring to the "Captain's log" recordings.. Yeah, haven't watched that much star trek.
Any time you join an existing project you have to learn how to use its libraries, this is no different. Yeah, maybe you'll save a few hours of learning time if some of it is standardized by the base language. If that becomes a real issue with someone you probably shouldn't have hired him/her anyway.
I'm not sure what you mean. It's possible to have arrays of ints, floats and everything. Looks to me like your idea would assume that array works only on structs? Anyway here's the implementation: http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.1/file/tip/src/lib/array.h
Well, that kind of GENERATE_SORT() seems very ad-hoc way to do it and very specific to a sort.. My method looks more like this (dynamically growing type safe arrays):
int foobar_cmp(const struct foobar *f1, const struct foobar *f2);
ARRAY_DEFINE(foobars, struct foobar);
struct foobar f;
I don't think that's much different (or more difficult) from how you'd do it with C++ templates. Of course implementing array.h is easier with C++.
It's also very hard to write type safe code properly in C. Just look at the classic example of the unsafe qsort versus the safer and faster std::sort.
You can do all kinds of nifty stuff with macros and gcc/clang extensions to provide type safety to C. Yeah, if you don't already have a library for that it can be a bit difficult to write one (or find one you like). But once you have the library it's very easy to write (mostly) type safe code with C. For example I have a type safe array_sort() in C.
I kinda did in my next sentence, but whatever..
But every implementation I've seen of a QR code reader in Android and IOS also gives you the option to inspect the content visually before acting on it. They ask if you want to proceed.
Of course one could argue the click-thru generation does not know enough to evaluate the content, but then these are the same people that no amount of malware/antivirus software can protect.
Is the confirmation something like OK/Cancel? I also tend to click OK buttons without hardly even reading them. That's why potentially security sensitive questions shouldn't have such simple buttons, but rather two (radio?) buttons that require you to read (and hopefully understand) what you're doing, such as: "Replace network settings from QR" and "Keep the existing network settings".
Yes, there are some advantages to using SQL database, like I said.. But I highly doubt "huge speed advantage" is one of them, unless you compare to a really badly set up system. I know people have switched from DBMail to Dovecot simply because Dovecot is so much faster..
Email isn't stored in SQL, because typically it's rather pointless. Full text search indexing doesn't require SQL, and it's more efficient without SQL anyway. There are some good use cases for storing emails in SQL database, but efficiency isn't one of them.
I wasn't planning on fixing all of security problems, but the typical case of clicking open random email attachments or running random programs from internet should and could be made safe, while still keeping the user interface user friendly. Those are the reasons for most of today's security problems.
SELinux doesn't address the problem. I agree with grandparent, although I think the focus should be more about on the UI side. The really low level implementation could perhaps be addressed with SELinux, but it's not a practical solution for any GUI app currently. For example how would you prevent Open Office from deleting everything in your home dir with SELinux, while still allowing it to read and write arbitrary documents? Yeah, you can't unless you manually go changing the labels every time you want to write somewhere.
I thought about how to implement an actually secure operating system in 2004, where you could safely just run any random program from internet, but no one cared to listen and I moved on.
I lose interest to code after even a single beer. Beer makes me want to talk to other people (even about coding). It makes me enjoy some TV shows/movies more. But what's the point of coding drunk? Seems like a waste of beer.
The apps can tell the firewall to open up a port for a period of time and then shut it back down.
I mean, it sounds almost like they could listen() a specific port, and once they're done with it, they could close() it! If all applications could always do this automatically, I think we could actually get rid of manual firewall configuration entirely!
Can anyone remember when the times were not hard, and money not scarce?