The Crowdstrike problem was in fact a Crowdstrike problem. It affected Linux too, but of course there are vastly fewer users of Crowdstrike on Linux: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theregister.com/AMP/2024/07/21/crowdstrike_linux_crashes_restoration_tools/
This is pretty obviously a Microsoft problem.
What were the issues you’ve had with WSL? I’ve been happily using that for a while now.
I’m a Rust fan, and I do think they eventually struck a pretty good “visibility vs noise” balance with ? (which was highly controversial at the time).
I should have stressed the “opinion” part of “IMO”. What I mean is that, when I read this, it struck me immediately as being exactly correct: https://joeduffyblog.com/2016/02/07/the-error-model/
The problem is that most languages with exceptions treat that as the idiomatic error mechanism. So checked exceptions were invented, essentially, to do exactly what you say: add the exception type to the function signature.
Having separate errors-as-return-values and unwinding-for-emergencies is a much more recent trend (and, IMO, an obviously good development).
Yes. True. But Uncle Bob literally complains about non-nullable types in the linked blog post.
I’m not saying testing isn’t important. I’m saying that hand-written unit tests are not the end-all be-all of software quality, and that Uncle Bob explicitly believes they are.
The blog post? Yeah, that was the moment I lost most of my remaining respect for his tech opinions.
Unlikely, unless his view has changed substantially in the last seven years: https://blog.cleancoder.com/uncle-bob/2017/01/11/TheDarkPath.html
I think his views on how to achieve good quality software are nearly antithetical to the goals of Rust. As expressed in that blog post and in Clean Code, he thinks better discipline, particularly through writing lots and lots of explicit unit tests, is the only path to reliable software. Rust, on the other hand, is very much designed to make the compiler and other tooling bear as much of the burden of correctness as possible.
(To be clear, I realize you’re kidding. But I do think it’s important to know just how at odds the TDD philosophy is from the “safe languages” philosophy.)
It’s not so much a problem of there being things you “can’t do” in other shells or older Bash, as that it breaks existing shell scripts, which is frustrating.
Just because it doesn’t matter for most users doesn’t mean it isn’t a real limitation. I acknowledged as much in my original comment.
Did you read the linked Q&A?
What do you get if you run /bin/bash --version?
You get admin privileges on MacOS like a big boy. You can use bash or zsh commands in Terminal all you want.
Cool. So try updating to a version of Bash from the last 15 years, because the pre-installed one is Bash 3, because Bash 4 and 5 are under the GPLv3 license, which Apple won’t comply with.
…ah, no, you can’t update the pre-installed Bash, because it’s on a section of the hard drive that is read-only even with admin access. You can install Bash 5 as a separate shell, and use that as your default terminal shell, but any scripts written with the standard instead of the more flexible will still use Bash 3.
This “handholding” (or really, a safety net) is arguably a good thing, or at least a positive tradeoff; but you can’t claim it doesn’t exist.
rm - rf is the only version that makes sense, since the only reason to delete and re-clone is to recover from an unexpected .git/ state, and git rm won’t remove that.
I’m not totally clear on why signals are used here in the first place. Arguably most C code doesn’t “need” to use signals in complex ways, either.
The trope will be “old” once the mainstream view is no longer that C-style memory management is “good enough”.
That said, this particular vulnerability was primarily due to how signals work, which I understand to be kind of unavoidably terrible in any language.
Yeah, that part is pretty wild and definitely Microsoft’s fault.