sdk VS chromium

[DllImport("libc")] private static extern uint geteuid(); public bool IsCurrentProcessElevated() { if (RuntimeInformation.IsOSPlatform(OSPlatform.Windows)) { // https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/blob/v6.0.100/src/Cli/dotnet/Installer/Windows/WindowsUtils.cs#L38 using var identity = WindowsIdentity.GetCurrent(); var principal = new WindowsPrincipal(identity); return principal.IsInRole(WindowsBuiltInRole.Administrator); } // https://github.com/dotnet/maintenance-packages/blob/62823150914410d43a3fd9de246d882f2a21d5ef/src/Common/tests/TestUtilities/System/PlatformDetection.Unix.cs#L58 // 0 is the ID of the root user return geteuid() == 0; }

> There's definitely things they tried to improve on that... weren't really improvements. The way "assemblies" are matched in .NET is much more sophisticated- the goal there was to try to kill DLL hell. It evolved into the Global Assembly Cache, which is sort of the Windows Registry of DLLs. Not a huge fan of those bits.

The Global Assembly Cache did not make the jump to the modern .NET (Core). There was the thing called `dotnet store`, but it’s broken since .NET 6: https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/issues/24752

The assembly redirection hell has also been greatly reduced there.

I do the same.

I have a small write-up here: https://chrlschn.dev/blog/2023/10/end-to-end-type-safety-wit...

You get end-to-end type safety (even better once you connect it to EF Core since you get it all ways to your DB).

With this setup with hot-reload (currently broken in .NET 8 [0]), productivity is really, really good. Like tRPC but with one of the most powerful ORMs out there right now.

[0] https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/issues/36918

Noticed an open issue just now.

You're thinking of https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/issues/22247

That's a twisted and wrong narrative

Unity like refers to a Editor driven approach

Unity became popular with its moonscript language (javascript like), they then ditched it to focus on C#, but what propelled unity to what it is today is the Editor driven approach, not c#, not DOTS

They are forced to transpile C# to C++ via IL2CPP as a result to target consoles/mobiles

C# is a disease when it comes to console/mobile support

It's a substantial dependency, quite heavy

And you are not free of unity like fuck ups, it's a microsoft language after all:

https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/issues/22247

And let's not forget when they changed the license of their debugger overnight to prevent people from using it in their products (jetbrains for example)

And them deprecating open source tooling to a proprietary/closed one for vscode (c# devkit)

Let's be careful when we recommend evil as an alternative to evil ;)

The script can be found at the end of the thread here https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/issues/8742

Another difference you might be surprised by is that the .NET tooling by default collects various data from your system and sends it to Microsoft [1]. If you want to avoid this (and still want to use .NET) you'll have to make sure that the environment variable DOTNET_CLI_TELEMETRY_OPTOUT is set in all contexts before touching anything.

[1] https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/issues/6145

SDK Pull Request

Pretty sure the final file referenced here https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/issues/8742 is the one I am thinking of.

One of the unexpected use of shadow DOMs for me was a document generated for image resource URLs [1], because the HTML standard apparently specifies the exact DOM structure of the generated document except for the `` element [2].

[1] https://github.com/chromium/chromium/blob/f02ca73/third_part...

[2] https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/document-lifecycle.ht...

Recently my favorite open source mouse gestures extension SmartUp Gestures was taken over by some shady entity (with github no longer being updated of course).

I opened Chrome ticket that they should ask to re-enable extension when ownership changes. They just closed the ticket replying with this link:

https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/extens...

:(

Hmm. It looks like files with the .lnk or .pif file extension can only be downloaded on a user gesture: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/39841e54180...

So it can't be done silently. Although, I do wish the type was marked "DANGEROUS" a la dll files.

On Linux, Chromium uses setuid or user namespaces to restrict the access of sandboxed components and seccomp-bpf to reduce the kernel attack surface.

Check out the Chromium docs on this topic: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/HEAD/docs/l...

You can also disable JIT in Firefox by setting javascript.options.baselinejit to false in about:config, although you won't get CET.

[1] https://github.com/chromium/chromium/blob/12c232c43ce7324d30...

Chromium targets iOS already: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/i...

For the sake of completeness, I've traced the evolution of the notice over time:

From 2008-07-26: "Going incognito doesn't affect the behavior of other people, servers, or software. Be wary of: / • Websites that collect or share information about you / • Internet service providers or employers that track the pages you visit / • Malicious software that tracks your keystrokes in exchange for free smileys / • Surveillance by secret agents / • People standing behind you" (https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/09911bf300f...)

From 2013-12-07: "Going incognito doesn't affect the behavior of other people, servers, software, or people standing behind you." (https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/c5e36c57178...)

From 2013-12-13: "However, you aren't invisible. Going incognito doesn't hide your browsing from your employer, your internet service provider, or the websites you visit." (https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/70821506825...)

From 2014-02-27: "However, you aren't invisible. Going incognito doesn't hide your browsing from your employer, your internet service provider, governments and other sophisticated attackers, or the websites you visit." (https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/ab54bd65701...)

From 2014-04-29: "Going incognito doesn't hide your browsing from your employer, your internet service provider, or the websites you visit." (https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/eb09a62ef40...)

From 2016-01-15: "However, you aren't invisible. Going incognito doesn’t hide your browsing from your employer, your internet service provider, or the websites you visit." (https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/b7dac1a6a79...)

From 2017-02-27: "Your activity might still be visible to: / • Websites you visit / • Your employer / • Your internet service provider" (https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/cfe102adddc...)

From 2017-03-29: "Your activity might still be visible to: / • Websites you visit / • Your employer or school / • Your internet service provider" (https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/7ca3ccf74e8...)

(Note that some of these were behind a feature flag for a few months.) Also, it looks like they've been intending to modify the new-tab page text for Incognito windows for some time, as part of the "Revamped Incognito NTP" project. You can view the modified text with 'chromium --enable-features=IncognitoNtpRevamp':

From 2021-08-13: "What Incognito doesn't do / Incognito does not make you invisible online: / • Sites know when you visit them / • Employers or schools can track browsing activity / • Internet service providers may monitor web traffic" (https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/e6ae57ba385...)

From 2022-01-25: "What Incognito doesn't do / Incognito does not make you invisible online: / • Sites and the services they use can see visits / • Employers or schools can track browsing activity / • Internet service providers can monitor web traffic" (https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/8b349f6c984...)

Blink can now be compiled for iOS, but without JIT or WASM:

https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/i...

https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=141170...

I think its weird that Vercel has this limit. There is no practical reason I can think of for having such a limit on URL characters that is so small. Chrome suggests a 2MB limit[0] for example. The platform itself doesn't have one, and Firefox I believe if memory serves (I can't find the source for this claim atm) is 1 MB effectively, and I don't think Safari is any lower than that either (and may well be more inline with Chrome on this, at 2 MB)

[0]: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/docs...