Its not "building a new package management system", "alpm" is literally the foundation of the pacman ecosystem. They are improving this so they _can_ catch up on packaging tasks.
I'm the same as the sibling commenter, I don't want to have another deb or rpm distro. The AUR wouldn't exist without pacman&makepkg.
But this _is_ improving the pacman ecosystem? Afaict its aiming to be a drop-in replacement of existing tools, but with proper libraries so systems like buildbtw can be built around it.
Integrity. TLS does prevent man-in-the-middle attacks. For a personal blog, that may not be important but you _do_ get a benefit, even if the encryption is not necessary.
Yeah, that was my point. This guy is Linus' chief lieutenant and heir apparent, and he doesn't even bother to ensure the integrity of his transmissions is protected through TLS.
Yeah, everyone in the EU is just working on this one law case. The guy next to me just cooked the meals for the guy that made the paper the case was filed on and now has to take an extended break. /s
People can and will do many things at once, like actually pursuing monopoly issues AND trying to improve the situation for everyone else. Its almost like there is only limited amount of one thing: space on page 1 of media outlets.
Great, now I can compare it with other Zsomethings. But as the post shows, thats just one branch of many naming schemes HP employs. Also: This already is a workstation, how could it _not_ be "ultra"? Why the doubling? Or does "workstation" just mean "something I can work with", including office stuff? In that case, I am very interested what other letters they use and what they're for.
For the same reason there is the Z2, Z4, Z8. There are several tiers of workstations, the Zbook Ultra is the best PC laptop you can get in a non-boat-anchor format, bar none.
TLS is not just for encryption, but also for integrity. The content you are seeing is exactly as intended by the owner of the domain or webservice (for whatever that is worth). No easy way to mitm or inject content on the way.
> which is done for IPv4-NAT, and for IPv6 firewalls
Are internet routers that do ipv4 NAT usually also doing an IPv6 firewall (meaning they only let incoming connections in if they are explicitly allowed by some configuration)? Maybe thats the point where the insecurity comes from. A Home NAT cannot work any other way(it fails "safely"), a firewall being absent usually means everything just gets through.
All the ones I've had have had a firewall by default for IPv4 and IPv6, yes. If ISPs are shipping stuff without a firewall by default I'd consider that incompetence given people don't understand this stuff and shitty IoT devices exist.
I do wonder how real the problem is, though. How are people going to discover a random IPv6 device on the internet? Even if you knew some /64 is residential it's still impractical to scan and find anything there (18 quintillion possible addresses). If you scanned an address per millisecond it would take 10^8 years, or about 1/8 the age of the earth, to scan a /64.
Are we just not able to think in such big numbers?
> Are internet routers that do ipv4 NAT usually also doing an IPv6 firewall (meaning they only let incoming connections in if they are explicitly allowed by some configuration)?
Consider the counter-factual: can you list any home routers/CPEs that do not do SPI, regardless of protocol? If someone found such a thing, IMHO there would be a CVE issued quite quickly for it.
And not just residential stuff: $WORK upgraded firewalls earlier in 2025, and in the rules table of the device(s) there is an entry at the bottom that says "Implicit deny all" (for all protocols).
So my question to NAT/IPv6 Truthers is: what are the devices that allow IPv6 connections without SPI?
And even if such a thing exists, a single IPv6 /64 subnet is as large as four billion (2^32) IPv4 Internets (2^32 addresses): good luck trying to find a host to hit in that space (RFC 7721).
Could you share your numbers as well? According to [1], the UK currently needs about 300TWh per year. Lets say we go entirely solar+wind+battery(whatever that means) and assume that battery has to bridge a gap of at most 7 days (meaning no wind and no solar at all during this time, which is at most a few days at a time). This adds up to 300/365*7= 5,8TWh of max capacity. Lets take it safe, round up and say we need 10TWh (which is already not "tens of TWH", but "ten"). [2] Says that grid-scale batteries come at around 350$ per kWh right now. kWh -> TWh is factor 1 billion (10^9), meaning if we want to build 10TWh of storage, it will cost 3,5 Trillion Dollars. Impressive number indeed. But there are multiple asterisks here.
1. This calculation takes into account that there is no exchange with mainland europe and no gas power plants or other sources of power (e.g. hydro or hydro storage). This sharply reduces the need for batteries.
2. Battery costs will fall in the next decades, compared to nuclear, which will take a long time (if ever) until costs will fall.
This just does not work and it has been tested in practice. I can't link studies right now, but as a simple example: How many of these horrible things were said by publicly known people (e.g. politicians, celebrities,...) and there were little to no actual consequences?
I'm not even sure this is true. Isn't there some company (or more) like Collabora behind most of the dev work right now?
reply