GrapheneOS already has their own attestation API that verifies the app is running on GrapheneOS. Since GrapheneOS is more secure than stock Android, security conscious apps like banking apps have a solid technical reason to use the API and support Graphene.
We just need to raise the profile of GrapheneOS and convince more banking apps to use this API, if they are already using Google's attestation API.
GrapheneOS's strategy for raising their profile and being seen as more legitimate is that they've formed a partnership with Motorola Mobility, who will be manufacturing Graphene compatible phones. <https://motorolanews.com/motorola-three-new-b2b-solutions-at...>
GNOME OS and KDE Linux are both specialized distros that primarily exist to test GNOME and KDE. They aren't for general users, and both web sites warn you not to rely on them. And they impose limitations on your ability to install arbitrary 3rd party software, whereas Fedora Atomic Desktop lets you customize the system without such limitations. Fedora Atomic lets me install arbitrary RPMs into the base system.
"quite a bit easier to extend" sounds good to me, but the "easier" here refers to the internal system implementation details? I am an end user, not a Linux distro system architect, and I care more about the user experience. I will be interested in test driving a general purpose OS based on this technology, whenever that happens in the future. Since Red Hat is involved in the UAPI project, perhaps Fedora Atomic Desktop will migrate to this technology in the future?
I think that what you are calling "immutable pass by reference" is what the OP is calling "pass by value". See, when used abstractly, "pass by value" means that the argument is passed as a value, hence it is immutable and the callee can't mutate it. One way to implement this is by copying the data that represents the value. In the OP's language, and in many other languages that work this way, instead of copying the data, we implement "pass by value" by incrementing the reference count and passing a pointer to the original data. These differing implementations provide the same abstract semantics, but differ in performance.
I am unable to extract any meaning from your post. You appear to be making a general claim: it is impossible to design a programming language where everything is a value. You at least admit that "data thingies" can be values. Are you claiming that it is not possible for functions to be values? (If we assume that the argument and the result of a function call is a value, then this would mean higher order functions are impossible, for example.) If not that, then what? Please give a specific example of something that can never be a value in any programming language that I care to design.
This is Trump's MAGA diet, a replacement for the lame liberal DEI diet of the Biden administration. Not hyperbole, the web site states all this explicitly if you click through to this link: <https://cdn.realfood.gov/Scientific%20Report.pdf>
The Scientific Report mentions Trump 4 times, so I looked up Trump's diet. Seems he eats a lot of McDonalds takeout and drinks a lot of diet coke. It seems to me that Trump's diet is an exemplary and healthy diet that follows these new recommendations, which prioritizes foods such as beef, oils and animal fat (including full fat dairy) and potatoes. Cheeseburger and fries, and the diet coke avoids added sugar, while promoting hydration. Trump might be prickly about past criticism of his diet; now he can point to these recommendations.
no, they are talking about high performance desktops, mostly. They link to the Framework desktop, which has 256 GB/s memory bandwith. For comparison, the Apple Mac Pro has 800 GB/s memory bandwidth. Neither manufacturer is able to achieve these speeds using socketed memory.
> I’d argue that actual closures which are unified everywhere as a single procedure type with non-capturing procedure values require some form of automatic-memory-management. That does not necessarily garbage collection nor ARC, but it could be something akin to RAII. This is all still automatic and against the philosophy of Odin.
C++ doesn't have this feature either. A C++ closure does not have the same type as a regular C-style function with the same argument types and result type. The types of functions and closures are not unified.
And C++ does have RAII, which the author feels is a kind of automatic memory management and against the philosophy of Odin.
So C++ doesn't have the feature G.B. says is impossible. I don't know enough to comment on Ada.
Didn't Lisp solve this problem in the 1980's with generic functions and multiple dispatch? I'm referring to the Common Lisp Object System (CLOS), and its predecessors, New Flavors and CommonLoops. I see no mention of this prior art in the paper.
CLOS is an object-oriented system, which solves the problem of adding new functions without modifying existing class definitions, by placing generic functions outside of class definitions.
The quality of your water varies with the district you live in. My municipal water provider puts chloramine in the water to kill bacteria. Occasionally we get high levels of chloramine, which is disgusting (smell and taste), but the water filter removes it. Occasionally they flush the pipes, which turns the water red, which is mentally disturbing, but the water filter removes the rust.
So while it's important to me that my municipal water is technically safe to drink, I still have a better experience with my drinking water when I use a filter. While it's amusing that this technical expert considers rust-red water to be "delicious", do they have family members, or friends that visit and consume beverages, and do these other people get to have an opinion?
(CoMaps is the open-source, non-profit community fork of Organic Maps.)