Before Kali, in the mid-late 90’s, we had had a 4-node dial-in BBS in my area code (813) called The Arena that ran an app called SerIPX - basically IPX over serial - to allow 4 players to play Doom. It was an incredible experience at the time, especially when paired with Dwango5.wad and other 4-player centric maps. Worked great on a 28.8k modem, direct, with no TCP/IP.
So many memories, but I wish I remembered more from that era. Crazy to think it was a quarter of a century ago.
I spent some time last week tinkering with a SOQuartz board and ended up getting it working with a Pine-focused distro called Plebian[1].
Took awhile to land on it though. Before that I tried all of the other distros on Pine64's "SOQuartz Software Releases"[2] page without any luck. The only one on that page that booted was the linked "Armbian Ubuntu Jammy with kernel 5.19.7" but it failed to boot again after an apt upgrade.
So there's at least one working OS, as of last week. But its definitely quite finicky and would probably need some work to build a proper device tree for any carrier board that's not the RPi CM4 Carrier Board.
The main argument in the article (and other places I’ve seen WG discussed) is the relative ease of auditing the core code as well as auditing implementations. In that context it’s less of an augment that it’s “more secure” and more of an argument that it’s “more cost/time effective to assure that it (the core code or Any implementation) is secure”.
That argument can be strong when considering that effective security in most projects comes down to whether assurance of security can be discerned effectively within a limited time window. Often very limited.
Increasingly it seems like heavily opinionated foundational tools and frameworks are overtaking more highly configurable alternatives, at least in terms of breadth of usage or popularity.
Could this be a positive change? Does this represent a healthy response cognitive fatigue in a world with configuration options at every possible layer?
Or does this shift to less readily configurable tools represent an overall negative? Are we losing diversity in favor of a more vulnerable monoculture crop?
Or both?
Asking for real, not sarcastically. As a developer I’m a huge proponent of simpler, more opinionated frameworks for most projects but I’m also aware my perspective is more limited than many HN commenters.
So many memories, but I wish I remembered more from that era. Crazy to think it was a quarter of a century ago.