you could edit your post title

Have you tried https://mike-fabian.github.io/ibus-typing-booster/ ?

I have not, but I think it does what you’re looking for.

The demo video emphasizes its use as an emoji picker but it was originally created for typing Indic languages.

At first i thought, wow, cool they’re still developing that? Doing a release or two a year, i see.

I used to use it long ago, and was pretty happy with it.

Nope.

Nope, it is.

It allows someone to use code without sharing the changes of that code. It enables non-free software creators like Microsoft to take the code, use it however they like, and not have to share back.

This is correct; it is a permissive license.

This is what Free Software prevents.

No, that is what copyleft (aims to) prevent.

Tired of people calling things like MIT and *BSD true libre/Free Software.

The no True Scotsman fallacy requires a lack of authority about what what constitutes “true” - but in the case of Free/Libre software, we have one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition

If you look at this license list (maintained by the Free Software Foundation’s Licensing and Compliance Lab) you’ll see that they classify many non-copyleft licenses as “permissive free software licenses”.

They’re basically one step away from no license at all.

Under the Berne Convention of 1886, everything is copyrighted by default, so “no license at all” means that nobody has permission to redistribute it :)

The differences between permissive free software licenses and CC0 or a simple declaration that something is “dedicated to the public domain” are subtle and it’s easy to see them as irrelevant, but the choice of license does have consequences.

The FSF recommends that people who want to use a permissive license choose Apache 2.0 “for substantial programs” because of its clause which “prevents patent treachery”, while noting that that clause makes it incompatible with GPLv2. For “simple programs” when the author wants a permissive license, FSF recommends the Expat license (aka the MIT license).

It is noteworthy that the latter is compatible with GPLv2; MIT-licensed programs can be included in a GPLv2-only work (like the Linux kernel) while Apache 2.0-licensed programs cannot. (GPLv3 is more accommodating and allows patent-related additional restrictions to be applied, so it is compatible with Apache 2.0.)

What is a U.S.-sanctioned place? Why does the U.S. government think this is a bad thing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government_sanctions

🎉 sometimes US sanctions actually do lead to positive outcomes :)

I often see Rust mentioned at the same time as MIT-type licenses. Is it just a cultural thing that people who write Rust dislike Libre licenses?

The word “libre” in the context of licensing exists to clarify the ambiguity of the word “free”, to emphasize that it means “free as in freedom” rather than “free as in beer” (aka no cost, or gratis) as the FSF explains here.

The MIT license is a “libre” license, because it does meet the Free Software Definition.

I think the word you are looking for here is copyleft: the MIT license is a permissive license, meaning it is not a copyleft license.

I don’t know enough about the Rust community to say why, but from a distance my impression is that yes they do appear to have a cultural preference for permissive licenses.

fyi: GNU coreutils are licensed GPL, not AGPL.

there is so much other confusion in this thread, i can’t even 🤦

Apple makes the source code to all their core utilities available

Apple makes the source code for many open source things they distribute available, but often only long after they have shipped binaries. And many parts of their OS which they developed in-house which could also be called “core utilities” are not open source at all.

Every Linux distro uses CUPS for printing. Apple wrote that and gave it away as free software.

for example, on a linux distro, we could modify the desktop environment and make it waaaaay lighter by getting rid of jpg or png icons and just using pure svg on it.

this has largely happened; if you’re on a dpkg-based distro try running this command:

dpkg -S svg | grep svg$ | sort

…and you’ll see that your distro includes thousands of SVG files :)

A ctrl-d does nothing on a non-empty line.

ctrl-d actually is flushing the buffer regardless of if the line is empty or not.

See my other comment for how you can observe it.

Note: for novices reading along at home, the notation ^X means hold down the ctrl key and type x (without shift).

ctrl-a though ctrl-z will send ASCII characters 1 through 26, which are called control characters (because they’re for controling things, and also because you can type them by holding down the control key).

^D is the EOF character.

Nope, Chuck Testa: there is no EOF character. ^*

“D” being the fourth letter of the alphabet, sends ASCII character 4, which (as you can see in man ascii) is called EOT or “end of transmission”.

$ stty -a | grep eof
intr = ^C; quit = ^\; erase = ^?; kill = ^U; eof = ^D; eol = <undef>;
$ man stty |grep -A1 eof |head -n2
       eof CHAR
              CHAR will send an end of file (terminate the input)

What this means is that the character specified after eof (by default ^D, aka EOT) is configured to be intercepted (by the tty driver) and, instead of that character being sent to the process reading standard input, the kernel will “send an end of file (terminate the input)”.

But “send an end of file” does not mean sending any character to the reading process: as the blog post explains, it actually (counterintuitively) means flushing the buffer - meaning, causing the read syscall to return with whatever is in the buffer currently.

It is confusing that this functionality is called eof, and the stty man page description of it is even more so, given that it (really!) does actually flush the contents of the buffer to read - even if the line buffer is not empty, in which case it is not actually indicating end-of-file!

You can confirm this is happening by running cat and typing a few characters and then hitting ^D. (cat will echo those characters, even though you have not hit enter yet.)

Or, you can pipe cat into pv and see that ^D also causes pv to receive the buffer contents prior to hitting enter.

I guess unix calls this eof because this function is most often used to flush an empty buffer, which is how you “send an end of file” to the reader.

The empty-read-means-EOF semantics are documented, among other places, in the man page for the read() syscall (man read):

On success, the number of bytes read is returned (zero indicates end of file)

If you want ^D to send an actual EOT character through to the reading process, you can escape it using the confusingly-named lnext function, which by default triggered by the ^V control character (aka SYN, “synchronous idle”, ASCII character 22 - note V is the 22nd letter of the alphabet):

$ man stty|grep lnext -A1
       * lnext CHAR
              CHAR will enter the next character quoted
$ stty -a|grep lnext
werase = ^W; lnext = ^V; discard = ^O; min = 1; time = 0;

Try it: you can type echo " and then ^V and ^D and then "|xxd (and then enter) and you will see that this is sending ascii character 4.

You can also send it with echo -e '\x04'. Note that the EOT character does not terminate bash:

$ echo -e '\x04\necho see?'|xxd
00000000: 040a 6563 686f 2073 6565 3f0a            ..echo see?.
$ echo -e '\x04\necho see?'|bash
bash: line 1: $'\004': command not found
see?

As you can see, it instead interprets it as a command.

$ echo -e '#!/bin/bash\necho lmao' > ~/.local/bin/$(echo -en '\x04')
$ chmod +x ~/.local/bin/$(echo -en '\x04')
$ echo -e '\x04\necho see?'|bash
lmao
see?

!meshtastic@mander.xyz is the more active of the two lemmy communities about it

sure. first, configure sudo to be passwordless (it’s easy to find instructions for how to do that).

then, put this in your ~/.bashrc:

alias sudo='echo -n "are you sure? "; for i in $(seq 5); do echo -n "$((6 - $i)) "; sleep 1; done && echo && /usr/bin/sudo '

Now “sudo” will give you a 5 second countdown before running whatever command you ask it to.

to answer this question: if you’re on a dpkg-based system, check /var/log/dpkg.log (or /var/log/dpkg.log.2.gz to get logs from January, if your system rotates them once a month).

Nice post, but your title is misleading: the blog post is actually titled “Supply Chain Attacks on Linux distributions - Overview” - the word “attacks” as used here is a synonym for “vulnerabilities”. It is not completely clear from their title if this is going to be a post about vulnerabilities being discovered, or about them actually being exploited maliciously, but the latter is at least not strongly implied.

This lemmy post however is titled (currently, hopefully OP will retitle it after this comment) “Supply Chain Attack found in Fedora’s Pagure and openSUSE’s Open Build Service”.

Adding the word “found” (and making “Attack” singular) changes the meaning: this title strongly implies that a malicious party has actually been detected performing a supply chain attack for real - which is not what this post is saying at all. (It does actually discuss some previous real-world attacks first, but it is not about finding those; the new findings in this post are vulnerabilities which were never attacked for real.)

I recommend using the original post title (minus its “Overview” suffix) or keeping your more verbose title but changing the word “Attack” to “Vulnerabilities” to make it clearer.

TLDR: These security researchers went looking for supply chain vulnerabilities, and found several bugs in two different systems. After responsibly disclosing them, they did these (very nice and accessible, btw - i recommend reading them) writeups about two of the bugs. The two they wrote up are similar in that they both involve going from being able to inject command line arguments, to being able to write to a file, to being able to execute arbitrary code (in a context which would allow attackers to perform supply chain attacks on any software distributed via the targeted infrastructure).

it’s 2025 now but otherwise yeah

Fuck this project, but… their source code can be free and open source even if they distribute binaries which aren’t. (Which they can do if they own the copyright, and/or if it is under a permissive non-copyleft FOSS license.)

And if the source code is actually FOSS, and many people actually want to use it, someone else will distribute FOSS binaries without this stupid EULA. So, this BS is still much better than a non-FOSS license like FUTO’s.

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.