Yes, but do these enthusiasts care at all if it meets some need for the users? I suspect that they do.

And how can they find out how well it meets that need other than receiving (respectful!) feedback?

I don't follow. The poster above my comment complained that graphene os was lacking a list of features is already has, so I corrected that.

> Yes, but do these enthusiasts care at all if it meets some need for the users? ... And how can they find out how well it meets that need other than receiving (respectful!) feedback?

What makes you think they don't? Can you point to any instances of them ignoring the community at large?

You can open an issue in any of the open source repositories and request a feature. Others can vote and comment on it. Or you can discuss it in the very lively forum. All methods used to steer the project towards the desires of the users.

In case you can't find them: https://github.com/GrapheneOS https://discuss.grapheneos.org/

This whole conversation just feels weird and specious to me.

I want them to implement a feature where the phone prints money.

> it's a non-profit (well, a for-profit owned by a non-profit) that needs to make a big profit in a short amount of time.

Can you please elaborate on this need to make a big profit? Where does the need come from?

Why do you say it's almost certainly untrue? Capital is well known for trying to suppress wages.

The amounts spent there have no practical chance of return in a reasonable timeframe. There's not that many devs that would be actually eliminated.

There's your problem! You have a theory but no proof!

Depends on the business.

I could've sworn I saw something in the last month or two about BITBLT or DirectX changes on Windows.

It wouldn't surprise me to find that Windows is now flagging and quarantining unsigned, unfamiliar executables that it catches making these draw calls or really any direct Win32 calls. Microsoft, and in particular Windows Defender which you can't really turn off anymore, has gotten pretty aggressive about blocking software for "security purposes".

Are we going from "the only stable ABI on Linux is Wine", to "the only stable ABI is Wine"?

(Especially now that .NET Framework was donated to Wine...)

> Especially now that .NET Framework was donated to Wine...

Do you mean Mono, or did I miss something?

Yes, I misremembered some things. Apparently Mono has more compatibility with .NET Framework (for instance 4.81) than dotnet (the current, modern recently released in version 10).

I mixed that up to mean that .NET Framework proper was released as open source, but that's unfortunately not the case.

Mono. Not .net fw.

This is the inverse of what he's saying. Attestation takes control away from users. Permissions give control to users. The ultimate user control is not using the software at all.

That's what the GP meant, wasn't it? "Good luck with your sandboxing, Google is already a step ahead in this cat-and-mouse game".

This article feels a little suspect. They beat the AI drum a bit hard. So I go to https://workweave.dev and of course their business model is tied up with LLMs.

> IME people an incredibly warped view of just how subtle and easy it is to introduce a memory safety bug.

Agreed, and I think part of the reason is because they take it personally when someone claims programmers (in general) can't consistently write memory safe C/C++.

Who specifically is saying this?

It's a rhetorical device. We're not meant to take it literally.

50 miles is a very long way to commute daily!