5 comments

  • Esophagus4 1 hour ago
    I love seeing stories of people building things to make the world better, rather than “Juicero but make it AI.”

    I didn’t pick up on it from the article, but why local binaries over a SaaS? It seems like that app would be the ideal candidate for a client server model… she wouldn’t need to worry about old Windows machines or firewalls or installing it on non-technical users’ machines, as long as they had a browser.

    They mentioned something about “locked down enterprise environments” but I don’t know what that means.

    Edit: oh, maybe “locked down environments + firewalls” means these machines have no internet egress so you would have to poke holes in a firewall to reach the internet?

    • pharrington 54 minutes ago
      Strict chain of custody requirements prohibit this kind of thing from being SaaS.
      • Esophagus4 24 minutes ago
        Could you elaborate a bit?

        Don’t mean to dig in on this, but I googled for some chain of custody / evidence tracking SaaS and found: QueTel, SAFE by Tracker Products, CustodyChain, and BlazeStack.

        Just curious. I probably have to read up on what chain of custody really entails.

  • kelvinjps 1 hour ago
    I found the whole thing inspirational
  • OutOfHere 2 hours ago
    This has to be the dumbest argument for Rust that I have ever seen. It doesn't belong on LWN.
    • userbinator 1 hour ago
      I suspect it's there because it ticks a bunch of virtue-signaling boxes. DEI, Rust, some "safety and security" boogeyman.
    • pharrington 2 hours ago
      Do you disagree that its easy to cross compile and create static binaries with?
      • OutOfHere 1 hour ago
        It is, but Go is easier, and various other languages also have this property. It is not a sufficient argument for Rust. In fact, large Rust projects are well known to take a very long time to recompile.
  • mx7zysuj4xew 3 hours ago
    [flagged]