I've always found it simple to understand and remember. Even over many years and decades, I've never had issues reading or writing simple regex syntax (excluding the flags and shorthands) even after long regex breaks.
Package managers may distribute and manage libraries as dependencies, but may also manage tangential files like documentation, debug symbols, or source code for those libraries. They may also package build files to integrate into the build system, executable programs, or executable instructions. So it is a superset. Distributing libraries is the main, but only one aspect of them.
A packaged library is distributable through the package manager.
APIs, application programmable interfaces, are a standardization of callability - of names, parameters, returns, and behavior. Libraries may practically offer a non-standardized interface, or they may explicitly define an interface that they promise to follow (a more stable interface that you can depend on), or a library may implement an interface that is defined independently of a library.
With a standardized interface, multiple libraries can implement the interface, and they become inter-operable and inter-changeable.
OpenGL is an API that is defined as standards. The various graphics driver developers implement the interface. (Their driver makes the implementation available as libraries.) And there's even software-implementations that implement a translation layer rather than "directly" talking to hardware. This for example allows you to play Windows games on Linux where the Windows APIs get translated to Linux equivalent API calls or implementations.
Frameworks typically offer a broad[er] architecture and functionality of things. You do not interface with them, you integrate with them. For example, in C++ you may use the Qt framework for UI. Rather than using a UI library that you interface with and call, you implement UI the Qt way, and call Qt to render that. This does not only work for UI of course.
The new Stack Overflow will be one built to feel like a personalized homepage—your own technical aggregator. It might collect videos, blogs, Q&A, war stories, jokes, educational materials, jobs, all these formats (or maybe others, we would love to hear your ideas!), and fold them together into one personalized destination.
oO
reaching for that stack overflow
I'm skeptical. We'll see how they implement it, and whether they can gain enough contributors for it to be useful.
Letting you know that VSCode is unable to uninstall the extension. It prompts me to uninstall, but when I confirm the window refreshes and the extension is still there, triggering the same "is problematic" prompt. This is an infinite loop. Same behavior when trying to uninstall the usual way from the extensions panel.
lol, release-notes.js - obfuscated; at first I thought it was the release notes data or content, but maybe it's the logic for displaying it?
Outdated sanity-io dependency somehow led to compromise? I still don't get how. It wouldn't suddenly integrate something else. Does it source data from elsewhere during build, and that was compromised too? Does it call into the web for no reason in the first place?
Either way, it's an issue of their integration. Claiming "it's not an issue in our extension" while shipping compromised code is just wrong.
Obfuscating their index.js theme logic because it's closed source may seem fine if they're trustworthy, but with this violation and breach, that trust is gone.
Neo4j provided database software under the AGPLv3, then tweaked the license, leading to legal battles over forks of the software. The AGPLv3 includes language that says any added restrictions or requirements are removable, meaning someone could just file off Neo4j's changes to the usage and distribution license, reverting it back to the standard AGPLv3, which the biz has argued and successfully fought against in that California district court.
The issue before the appeals court boils down to the right to remove contractual restrictions added to the terms of the APGL. This right is spelled out in AGPLv3, section 7, paragraph 4: "If the program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this license along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term." Other GPLs contain similar terms.
"Licensed under AGPL but not AGPL"? It's a named license that people have expectations on. I assume if they had said "licensed under aa modified AGPL license" it would have been fine? Seems reasonable/makes sense.
How does that become "may kill a GPL license"? Key word "a"? (When it's not one.)
In the past days, several projects advocating tolerance and equal rights on Codeberg have been subject to hate attacks, such as massive spam of abusive messages in their issue trackers. We have been monitoring the situation closely and have tried to clean up the content as quickly as possible.
Often, content remained available only for a few and up to 30 minutes. Due to constrained personal capacities, some rare cases have remained online for longer. We appreciate all your reports to abuse@codeberg.org that help us identify abuse quickly.
On 12 February 2025, an abuser has escalated the attacks to a next level. Instead of targetting individual projects, they have started to create abusive content and mentioned Codeberg users in chunks of 100 each.
Without having looked into it, I find it plausible that it could take several patchsets to come to an assessment of consequences and conclusion. Especially as they happen alongside assessments and discussion. The patchset number may also be largely irrelevant depending on what was changed.
When I bash my head into a wall, does that count?