technology:linux

  • WireGuard : fast, modern, secure VPN tunnel
    https://www.wireguard.com
    Pour l’instant c’est en développement, there be dragons.

    WireGuard® is an extremely simple yet fast and modern VPN that utilizes state-of-the-art cryptography. It aims to be faster, simpler, leaner, and more useful than IPsec, while avoiding the massive headache. It intends to be considerably more performant than OpenVPN. WireGuard is designed as a general purpose VPN for running on embedded interfaces and super computers alike, fit for many different circumstances. Initially released for the Linux kernel, it is now cross-platform (Windows, macOS, BSD, iOS, Android) and widely deployable. It is currently under heavy development, but already it might be regarded as the most secure, easiest to use, and simplest VPN solution in the industry.

  • Adversarial Interoperability: Reviving an Elegant Weapon From a More Civilized Age to Slay Today’s Monopolies | Electronic Frontier Foundation
    https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/06/adversarial-interoperability-reviving-elegant-weapon-more-civilized-age-slay

    Voici ce que le mouvement pour le logiciel libre peut apprendre des tactiques des concurrents de Microsoft - si vous ne pouvez pas gagner contre les géants, profitez d’eux.

    Today, Apple is one of the largest, most profitable companies on Earth, but in the early 2000s, the company was fighting for its life. Microsoft’s Windows operating system was ascendant, and Microsoft leveraged its dominance to ensure that every Windows user relied on its Microsoft Office suite (Word, Excel, Powerpoint, etc). Apple users—a small minority of computer users—who wanted to exchange documents with the much larger world of Windows users were dependent on Microsoft’s Office for the Macintosh operating system (which worked inconsistently with Windows Office documents, with unexpected behaviors like corrupting documents so they were no longer readable, or partially/incorrectly displaying parts of exchanged documents). Alternatively, Apple users could ask Windows users to export their Office documents to an “interoperable” file format like Rich Text Format (for text), or Comma-Separated Values (for spreadsheets). These, too, were inconsistent and error-prone, interpreted in different ways by different programs on both Mac and Windows systems.

    Apple could have begged Microsoft to improve its Macintosh offerings, or they could have begged the company to standardize its flagship products at a standards body like OASIS or ISO. But Microsoft had little motive to do such a thing: its Office products were a tremendous competitive advantage, and despite the fact that Apple was too small to be a real threat, Microsoft had a well-deserved reputation for going to enormous lengths to snuff out potential competitors, including both Macintosh computers and computers running the GNU/Linux operating system.

    Apple did not rely on Microsoft’s goodwill and generosity: instead, it relied on reverse-engineering. After its 2002 “Switch” ad campaign—which begged potential Apple customers to ignore the “myths” about how hard it was to integrate Macs into Windows workflows—it intensified work on its iWork productivity suite, which launched in 2005, incorporating a word-processor (Pages), a spreadsheet (Numbers) and a presentation program (Keynote). These were feature-rich applications in their own right, with many innovations that leapfrogged the incumbent Microsoft tools, but this superiority would still not have been sufficient to ensure the adoption of iWork, because the world’s greatest spreadsheets are of no use if everyone you need to work with can’t open them.

    What made iWork a success—and helped re-launch Apple—was the fact that Pages could open and save most Word files; Numbers could open and save most Excel files; and Keynote could open and save most PowerPoint presentations. Apple did not attain this compatibility through Microsoft’s cooperation: it attained it despite Microsoft’s noncooperation. Apple didn’t just make an “interoperable” product that worked with an existing product in the market: they made an adversarially interoperable product whose compatibility was wrested from the incumbent, through diligent reverse-engineering and reimplementation. What’s more, Apple committed to maintaining that interoperability, even though Microsoft continued to update its products in ways that temporarily undermined the ability of Apple customers to exchange documents with Microsoft customers, paying engineers to unbreak everything that Microsoft’s maneuvers broke. Apple’s persistence paid off: over time, Microsoft’s customers became dependent on compatibility with Apple customers, and they would complain if Microsoft changed its Office products in ways that broke their cross-platform workflow.

    Since Pages’ launch, document interoperability has stabilized, with multiple parties entering the market, including Google’s cloud-based Docs offerings, and the free/open alternatives from LibreOffice. The convergence on this standard was not undertaken with the blessing of the dominant player: rather, it came about despite Microsoft’s opposition. Docs are not just interoperable, they’re adversarially interoperable: each has its own file format, but each can read Microsoft’s file format.

    The document wars are just one of many key junctures in which adversarial interoperability made a dominant player vulnerable to new entrants:

    Hayes modems
    Usenet’s alt.* hierarchy
    Supercard’s compatibility with Hypercard
    Search engines’ web-crawlers
    Servers of every kind, which routinely impersonate PCs, printers, and other devices

    Scratch the surface of most Big Tech giants and you’ll find an adversarial interoperability story: Facebook grew by making a tool that let its users stay in touch with MySpace users; Google products from search to Docs and beyond depend on adversarial interoperability layers; Amazon’s cloud is full of virtual machines pretending to be discrete CPUs, impersonating real computers so well that the programs running within them have no idea that they’re trapped in the Matrix.

    Adversarial interoperability converts market dominance from an unassailable asset to a liability. Once Facebook could give new users the ability to stay in touch with MySpace friends, then every message those Facebook users sent back to MySpace—with a footer advertising Facebook’s superiority—became a recruiting tool for more Facebook users. MySpace served Facebook as a reservoir of conveniently organized potential users that could be easily reached with a compelling pitch about why they should switch.

    Today, Facebook is posting 30-54% annual year-on-year revenue growth and boasts 2.3 billion users, many of whom are deeply unhappy with the service, but who are stuck within its confines because their friends are there (and vice-versa).

    A company making billions and growing by double-digits with 2.3 billion unhappy customers should be every investor’s white whale, but instead, Facebook and its associated businesses are known as “the kill zone” in investment circles.

    Facebook’s advantage is in “network effects”: the idea that Facebook increases in value with every user who joins it (because more users increase the likelihood that the person you’re looking for is on Facebook). But adversarial interoperability could allow new market entrants to arrogate those network effects to themselves, by allowing their users to remain in contact with Facebook friends even after they’ve left Facebook.

    This kind of adversarial interoperability goes beyond the sort of thing envisioned by “data portability,” which usually refers to tools that allow users to make a one-off export of all their data, which they can take with them to rival services. Data portability is important, but it is no substitute for the ability to have ongoing access to a service that you’re in the process of migrating away from.

    Big Tech platforms leverage both their users’ behavioral data and the ability to lock their users into “walled gardens” to drive incredible growth and profits. The customers for these systems are treated as though they have entered into a negotiated contract with the companies, trading privacy for service, or vendor lock-in for some kind of subsidy or convenience. And when Big Tech lobbies against privacy regulations and anti-walled-garden measures like Right to Repair legislation, they say that their customers negotiated a deal in which they surrendered their personal information to be plundered and sold, or their freedom to buy service and parts on the open market.

    But it’s obvious that no such negotiation has taken place. Your browser invisibly and silently hemorrhages your personal information as you move about the web; you paid for your phone or printer and should have the right to decide whose ink or apps go into them.

    Adversarial interoperability is the consumer’s bargaining chip in these coercive “negotiations.” More than a quarter of Internet users have installed ad-blockers, making it the biggest consumer revolt in human history. These users are making counteroffers: the platforms say, “We want all of your data in exchange for this service,” and their users say, “How about none?” Now we have a negotiation!

    Or think of the iPhone owners who patronize independent service centers instead of using Apple’s service: Apple’s opening bid is “You only ever get your stuff fixed from us, at a price we set,” and the owners of Apple devices say, “Hard pass.” Now it’s up to Apple to make a counteroffer. We’ll know it’s a fair one if iPhone owners decide to patronize Apple’s service centers.

    This is what a competitive market looks like. In the absence of competitive offerings from rival firms, consumers make counteroffers by other means.

    There is good reason to want to see a reinvigorated approach to competition in America, but it’s important to remember that competition is enabled or constrained not just by mergers and acquisitions. Companies can use a whole package of laws to attain and maintain dominance, to the detriment of the public interest.

    Today, consumers and toolsmiths confront a thicket of laws and rules that stand between them and technological self-determination. To change that, we need to reform the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, , patent law, and other rules and laws. Adversarial interoperability is in the history of every tech giant that rules today, and if it was good enough for them in the past, it’s good enough for the companies that will topple them in the future.

    #adversarial_Interoperability #logiciel_libre #disruption

    • lien propre :

      https://www.zdnet.com/article/russian-military-moves-closer-to-replacing-windows-with-astra-linux

      [...]

      RusBITech initially developed the OS for use in the Russian private market, but the company also expanded into the local government sector, where it became very popular with military contractors.

      A few years back, the OS received certifications to handle Russian government information labeled as “secret” and “top secret” —two data secrecy levels situated underneath “special importance” according to Russian law.

      Since then, Astra Linux has slowly made its way into government agencies and is currently in use at the Russian National Center for Defence Control, among various other government and military agencies.
      Already used by the Russian military

      In January 2018, the Russian Ministry of Defence announced plans to transfer military systems from the Windows OS to Astra Linux, citing fears that Microsoft’s closed-source approach might hide Windows backdoors that can be abused by US intelligence to spy on Russian government operations.

      Since then, RusBITech has been going through the Russian government’s certification process to get a “special importance” classification for Astra Linux — which it did, on April 17, according to two local media reports.

      In addition to the FSTEC certification, Astra Linux also received certificates of conformity from the FSB, Russia’s top intelligence agency, and the Ministry of Defense, opening the door for full adoption by Russia’s top military and intelligence agencies.

      The certification was granted for Astra Linux Special Edition version 1.6, also known as the Smolensk release, per local reports. This is a commercial (paid) release.

      The news comes after earlier this week it was reported that the Chinese military was taking similar steps to replace the Windows OS on military systems amid fears of US hacking. The Chinese military didn’t go for a Linux distro but instead alluded to plans of developing a custom OS instead.

      [finis]

      #Russie #sécurité #militaire #défense #Debian #Linux #Windows

      #Chine #États-unis

  • leandromoreira/linux-network-performance-parameters: Learn where some of the network sysctl variables fit into the Linux/Kernel network flow
    https://github.com/leandromoreira/linux-network-performance-parameters

    Sometimes people are looking for sysctl cargo cult values that bring high throughput and low latency with no trade-off and that works on every occasion. That’s not realistic, although we can say that the newer kernel versions are very well tuned by default. In fact, you might hurt performance if you mess with the defaults.

    This brief tutorial shows where some of the most used and quoted sysctl/network parameters are located into the Linux network flow, it was heavily inspired by the illustrated guide to Linux networking stack and many of Marek Majkowski’s posts.

  • Red Hat has changed its logo for the first time in 20 years
    https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2019/05/red-hat-has-changed-its-logo-for-the-first-time-in-20-years

    Red Hat has a new logo and typeface with a more modern look. The new logo is the first major update to the iconic Linux brand in almost 20 years. This post, Red Hat has changed its logo for the first time in 20 years, was written by Joey Sneddon and first appeared on OMG! Ubuntu!.

  • Linux Release Roundup: Geary, Raven & Fedora 30
    https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2019/04/raven-reader-app-update

    We roundup another batch of recent Linux releases, including updates to the Geary email client, Raven RSS reader and the latest Fedora 30 release. This post, Linux Release Roundup: Geary, Raven & Fedora 30, was written by Joey Sneddon and first appeared on OMG! Ubuntu!.

  • OpenMandriva Is Finding Great Success In Their Switch To Using LLVM’s Clang Compiler - Phoronix
    https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=OpenMandrova-Clang-Euro-LLVM

    OpenMandriva remains among the few Linux distributions using the LLVM Clang compiler by default where possible in place of the GCC compiler. While at times it’s difficult in maintaining this combination, they continue to find great success in using Clang as their default compiler.

    OpenMandriva developer Bernhard Rosenkränzer presented at this month’s EuroLLVM conference on their use of LLVM Clang by default where nearly all Linux distributions remain with the GNU Compiler Collection.

    #compilation #linux #clang #llvm #gcc #linux_distribution

  • This Week Twitter Taught Me about Preferences, Pop OS & Raspberry Pi Penguins
    https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2019/04/what-twitter-taught-me-this-week

    The first in a series of post where I share interesting Linux-y anecdotes, trivia, and tweets from the past week on Twitter, the microblogging platform. This post, This Week Twitter Taught Me about Preferences, Pop OS & Raspberry Pi Penguins, was written by Joey Sneddon and first appeared on OMG! Ubuntu!.

  • How to Sync GNOME Shell Extensions Between Desktops
    https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2019/04/sync-gnome-shell-extensions

    We spotlight a handy way to sync GNOME extensions between desktops and Linux distributions using (what else) a GNOME extension to do it! This post, How to Sync GNOME Shell Extensions Between Desktops, was written by Joey Sneddon and first appeared on OMG! Ubuntu!.

  • System76 Launch Pop OS 19.04, Based on Ubuntu 19.04
    https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2019/04/system76-launch-pop-os-19-04-based-on-ubuntu-19-04

    Pop OS 19.04 is the latest release of the Ubuntu-based Pop OS Linux distribution created by Linux laptop seller System76. It’s ready to download now. This post, System76 Launch Pop OS 19.04, Based on Ubuntu 19.04, was written by Joey Sneddon and first appeared on OMG! Ubuntu!.

  • Ataris VCS Delayed Until December, Like Anyone Even Cares At This Point…
    https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2019/04/ataris-vcs-delayed-until-december-does-anyone-even-care-at-this-point

    Shipment of the Ataris VCS Linux games console has been put back to December 2019 at the earliest, despite an original release date of July 2019. This post, Ataris VCS Delayed Until December, Like Anyone Even Cares At This Point…, was written by Joey Sneddon and first appeared on OMG! Ubuntu!.

  • How to Upgrade to Ubuntu 19.04 from 18.04, Right Now
    https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2019/04/how-to-upgrade-to-ubuntu-19-04

    Learn how to upgrade to Ubuntu 19.04 from 18.10. Run the latest Ubuntu Linux release without needing to do a fresh install on your laptop, PC or server. This post, How to Upgrade to Ubuntu 19.04 from 18.04, Right Now, was written by Joey Sneddon and first appeared on OMG! Ubuntu!.

  • Managing Ubuntu Snaps: the stuff no one tells you
    https://hackernoon.com/managing-ubuntu-snaps-the-stuff-no-one-tells-you-625dfbe4b26c?source=rss

    The snapcraft.io site: where #snap developers and users meetCanonical’s Snaps are definitely the real deal. The secure and portable #linux package management system is more than a geeky tool for showing off your tech creds. Just consider the growing list of companies that have already bought in and are providing their desktop software through snaps, including Blender, Slack, Spotify, Android Studio, and Microsoft’s (Microsoft!) Visual Studio Code. And don’t forget that the real growth of the snap system is in the world of IoT devices and servers rather than desktops.But as the popularity of snaps grows — some new Linux distros come with the snapd service installed by default — you might be forgiven for wondering how you’re supposed to make them work. Don’t get me wrong: there are all kinds of (...)

    #administration #package-management #sysadmin

  • #blockchain as the Next Evolutionary Step of the Open Source Movement
    https://hackernoon.com/blockchain-as-the-next-evolutionary-step-of-the-open-source-movement-12e

    There’s little argument that open source has transformed our world. As a developer, I cannot recall a single day in the last few years where I did not rely on open source software. I’m not the exception. The majority of software engineers today rely on open source daily in their professional lives.For one, open source is dominating developer infrastructure. From operating systems (Linux in the cloud) to databases (MySQL, MongoDB, Redis) to programming languages themselves (JavaScript, Python, Java, C, PHP). It’s not just developers, it’s consumers as well. From what they run on their phones (Android) to how they access the web (Chrome, Firefox).The motivation is clear. Open source is good for humanity. It is making technology more accessible and open — anyone can build anything.Open source (...)

    #bitcoin #open-source #ethereum #cryptocurrency

    • lien propre:

      Glen Greenwald, Micah Lee - 20190412

      https://theintercept.com/2019/04/11/the-u-s-governments-indictment-of-julian-assange-poses-grave-threats-t

      In April, 2017, Pompeo, while still CIA chief, delivered a deranged speech proclaiming that “we have to recognize that we can no longer allow Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us.” He punctuated his speech with this threat: “To give them the space to crush us with misappropriated secrets is a perversion of what our great Constitution stands for. It ends now.”

      From the start, the Trump DOJ has made no secret of its desire to criminalize journalism generally. Early in the Trump administration, Sessions explicitly discussed the possibility of prosecuting journalists for publishing classified information. Trump and his key aides were open about how eager they were to build on, and escalate, the Obama administration’s progress in enabling journalism in the U.S. to be criminalized.

      Today’s arrest of Assange is clearly the culmination of a two-year effort by the U.S. government to coerce Ecuador — under its new and submissive president, Lenín Moreno — to withdraw the asylum protection it extended to Assange in 2012. Rescinding Assange’s asylum would enable the U.K. to arrest Assange on minor bail-jumping charges pending in London and, far more significantly, to rely on an extradition request from the U.S. government to send him to a country to which he has no connection (the U.S.) to stand trial relating to leaked documents.

      Indeed, the Trump administration’s motive here is clear. With Ecuador withdrawing its asylum protection and subserviently allowing the U.K. to enter its own embassy to arrest Assange, Assange faced no charges other than a minor bail-jumping charge in the U.K. (Sweden closed its sexual assault investigation not because they concluded Assange was innocent, but because they spent years unsuccessfully trying to extradite him). By indicting Assange and demanding his extradition, it ensures that Assange — once he serves his time in a London jail for bail-jumping — will be kept in a British prison for the full year or longer that it takes for the U.S. extradition request, which Assange will certainly contest, to wind its way through the British courts.

      The indictment tries to cast itself as charging Assange not with journalistic activities but with criminal hacking. But it is a thinly disguised pretext for prosecuting Assange for publishing the U.S. government’s secret documents while pretending to make it about something else.

      Whatever else is true about the indictment, substantial parts of the document explicitly characterize as criminal exactly the actions that journalists routinely engage in with their sources and thus, constitutes a dangerous attempt to criminalize investigative journalism.

      The indictment, for instance, places great emphasis on Assange’s alleged encouragement that Manning — after she already turned over hundreds of thousands of classified documents — try to get more documents for WikiLeaks to publish. The indictment claims that “discussions also reflect Assange actively encouraging Manning to provide more information. During an exchange, Manning told Assange that ‘after this upload, that’s all I really have got left.’ To which Assange replied, ‘curious eyes never run dry in my experience.’”

      But encouraging sources to obtain more information is something journalists do routinely. Indeed, it would be a breach of one’s journalistic duties not to ask vital sources with access to classified information if they could provide even more information so as to allow more complete reporting. If a source comes to a journalist with information, it is entirely common and expected that the journalist would reply: Can you also get me X, Y, and Z to complete the story or to make it better? As Edward Snowden said this morning, “Bob Woodward stated publicly he would have advised me to remain in place and act as a mole.”

      Investigative journalism in many, if not most, cases, entails a constant back and forth between journalist and source in which the journalist tries to induce the source to provide more classified information, even if doing so is illegal. To include such “encouragement” as part of a criminal indictment — as the Trump DOJ did today — is to criminalize the crux of investigative journalism itself, even if the indictment includes other activities you believe fall outside the scope of journalism.

      As Northwestern journalism professor Dan Kennedy explained in The Guardian in 2010 when denouncing as a press freedom threat the Obama DOJ’s attempts to indict Assange based on the theory that he did more than passively receive and publish documents — i.e., that he actively “colluded” with Manning:


      The problem is that there is no meaningful distinction to be made. How did the Guardian, equally, not “collude” with WikiLeaks in obtaining the cables? How did the New York Times not “collude” with the Guardian when the Guardian gave the Times a copy following Assange’s decision to cut the Times out of the latest document dump?

      For that matter, I don’t see how any news organisation can be said not to have colluded with a source when it receives leaked documents. Didn’t the Times collude with Daniel Ellsberg when it received the Pentagon Papers from him? Yes, there are differences. Ellsberg had finished making copies long before he began working with the Times, whereas Assange may have goaded Manning. But does that really matter?

      Most of the reports about the Assange indictment today have falsely suggested that the Trump DOJ discovered some sort of new evidence that proved Assange tried to help Manning hack through a password in order to use a different username to download documents. Aside from the fact that those attempts failed, none of this is new: As the last five paragraphs of this 2011 Politico story demonstrate, that Assange talked to Manning about ways to use a different username so as to avoid detection was part of Manning’s trial and was long known to the Obama DOJ when they decided not to prosecute.

      There are only two new events that explain today’s indictment of Assange: 1) The Trump administration from the start included authoritarian extremists such as Sessions and Pompeo who do not care in the slightest about press freedom and were determined to criminalize journalism against the U.S., and 2) With Ecuador about to withdraw its asylum protection, the U.S. government needed an excuse to prevent Assange from walking free.

      A technical analysis of the indictment’s claims similarly proves the charge against Assange to be a serious threat to First Amendment press liberties, primarily because it seeks to criminalize what is actually a journalist’s core duty: helping one’s source avoid detection. The indictment deceitfully seeks to cast Assange’s efforts to help Manning maintain her anonymity as some sort of sinister hacking attack.

      The Defense Department computer that Manning used to download the documents which she then furnished to WikiLeaks was likely running the Windows operating system. It had multiple user accounts on it, including an account to which Manning had legitimate access. Each account is protected by a password, and Windows computers store a file that contains a list of usernames and password “hashes,” or scrambled versions of the passwords. Only accounts designated as “administrator,” a designation Manning’s account lacked, have permission to access this file.

      The indictment suggests that Manning, in order to access this password file, powered off her computer and then powered it back on, this time booting to a CD running the Linux operating system. From within Linux, she allegedly accessed this file full of password hashes. The indictment alleges that Assange agreed to try to crack one of these password hashes, which, if successful, would recover the original password. With the original password, Manning would be able to log directly into that other user’s account, which — as the indictment puts it — “would have made it more difficult for investigators to identify Manning as the source of disclosures of classified information.”

      Assange appears to have been unsuccessful in cracking the password. The indictment alleges that “Assange indicated that he had been trying to crack the password by stating that he had ‘no luck so far.’”

      Thus, even if one accepts all of the indictment’s claims as true, Assange was not trying to hack into new document files to which Manning had no access, but rather trying to help Manning avoid detection as a source. For that reason, the precedent that this case would set would be a devastating blow to investigative journalists and press freedom everywhere.

      Journalists have an ethical obligation to take steps to protect their sources from retaliation, which sometimes includes granting them anonymity and employing technical measures to help ensure that their identity is not discovered. When journalists take source protection seriously, they strip metadata and redact information from documents before publishing them if that information could have been used to identify their source; they host cloud-based systems such as SecureDrop, now employed by dozens of major newsrooms around the world, that make it easier and safer for whistleblowers, who may be under surveillance, to send messages and classified documents to journalists without their employers knowing; and they use secure communication tools like Signal and set them to automatically delete messages.

      But today’s indictment of Assange seeks to criminalize exactly these types of source-protection efforts, as it states that “it was part of the conspiracy that Assange and Manning used a special folder on a cloud drop box of WikiLeaks to transmit classified records containing information related to the national defense of the United States.”

      The indictment, in numerous other passages, plainly conflates standard newsroom best practices with a criminal conspiracy. It states, for instance, that “it was part of the conspiracy that Assange and Manning used the ‘Jabber’ online chat service to collaborate on the acquisition and dissemination of the classified records, and to enter into the agreement to crack the password […].” There is no question that using Jabber, or any other encrypted messaging system, to communicate with sources and acquire documents with the intent to publish them, is a completely lawful and standard part of modern investigative journalism. Newsrooms across the world now use similar technologies to communicate securely with their sources and to help their sources avoid detection by the government.

      The indictment similarly alleges that “it was part of the conspiracy that Assange and Manning took measures to conceal Manning as the source of the disclosure of classified records to WikiLeaks, including by removing usernames from the disclosed information and deleting chat logs between Assange and Manning.”

  • ML.NET: Machine Learning framework by Microsoft for .NET developers
    https://hackernoon.com/ml-net-machine-learning-framework-by-microsoft-for-net-developers-3c6f46

    ML.NET: Machine Learning framework by Microsoft for .NET developersWhenever you think of data science and machine learning, the only two programming languages that pop up on your mind are Python and R. But, the question arises, what if the developer has knowledge of other languages than these?We have a solution in the form of Microsoft’s recently introduced build 2018 of its own version of the machine learning framework especially for .NET and C# developers. The framework is open source and cross-platform and can also run on Windows, Linux, and macOS.The developers always wanted to have a NuGet package which they can plug in with a. Net application for creating machine learning applications. After the release of the first version,ML.NET is still a baby but it is already showing the (...)

    #dotnet #dotnet-developer #mldotnet #microsoft-framework #machine-learning

  • Hi, #github ! Bye, #bitbucket !
    https://hackernoon.com/hi-github-bye-bitbucket-c0ba7d5051a4?source=rss----3a8144eabfe3---4

    Few years back, Bitbucket shines when putting it next to Github. Before Github came up with Github Actions and free unlimited private repos, Bitbucket already did. Since I was freelancing, most of my repos need to be private, and paying is less of an option to me, I decided to use Bitbucket.However, things have changed a lot. Github is now more comprehensive, and some necessary features are still missing in Bitbucket, like labeling a #git issue.With Bitbucket, I also get a missing portfolio of mine which is the contribution activity graph. I believe most agree this is essential to developers for many purposes, despite this doesn’t reflect the true work one has done.contribution activity of one of Arch Linux developersWith Github, I get security notifications if any of my repos has a (...)

  • The Linux desktop is in trouble | ZDNet
    https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-linux-desktop-is-in-trouble

    Jason Hicks, Muffin maintainer and member of the Linux Mint team, observed on Reddit, as reported by Brian Fagioli:

    I also have a life outside open-source work, too. It’s not mentally sound to put the hours I’ve put into the compositor. I was only able to do what I could because I was unemployed in January. Now I’m working a job full time, and trying to keep up with bug fixes. I’ve been spending every night and weekend, basically every spare moment of my free time trying to fix things.

    There’s also been tension because we’re 1-2 months from a release. We’ve had contentious debate about input latency, effects of certain patches, and ways to measure all of this. Other team members are going through their own equally hard circumstances, and it’s an unfortunate amount of stress to occur all at once at the wrong times. We’re human at the end of the day. I wish these aspects didn’t leak into the blog post so much, so just wanted to vent and provide some context. If you take away anything from it, please try the PPA and report bugs. We need people looking for things that might get stuck in cinnamon 4.2.

    I’ve heard this before. There have been a lot of Linux desktop distros over the years. They tend to last for five or six years and then real life gets in the way of what’s almost always a volunteer effort. The programmers walk away, and the distro then all too often declines to be replaced by another.

    It is not easy building and supporting a Linux desktop. It comes with a lot of wear and tear on its developers with far too little reward. Mint is really a winner and I hope to see it around for many more years to come. But I worry over it.

    Looking ahead, I’d love to see a foundation bring together the Linux desktop community and have them hammer out out a common desktop for everyone. Yes, I know, I know. Many hardcore Linux users love have a variety of choices. The world is not made up of desktop Linux users. For the million or so of us, there are hundreds of millions who want an easy-to-use desktop that’s not Windows, doesn’t require buying a Mac, and comes with broad software and hardware support. Are you listening Linux Foundation?

    #Logiciels_libres #Linux #GUI #Economie

  • Microsoft Say Edge May Come to Linux “Eventually”
    https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2019/04/microsoft-edge-may-come-to-linux-eventually-just-not-right-now

    Linux builds of Microsoft Edge (the new version using Chromium) aren’t available yet, but the Edge team say it’s something they want to do ’eventually’. This post, Microsoft Say Edge May Come to Linux “Eventually”, was written by Joey Sneddon and first appeared on OMG! Ubuntu!.

  • Linux Release Roundup, Including Major Updates to DeaDBeeF & GIMP
    https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2019/04/linux-release-roundup-including-major-updates-to-deadbeef-gimp

    We roundup the latest Linux releases, including new versions of open-source image editor The GIMP and free music player DeaDBeeF, inc. Install instructions! This post, Linux Release Roundup, Including Major Updates to DeaDBeeF & GIMP, was written by Joey Sneddon and first appeared on OMG! Ubuntu!.

  • Things Are Looking Up for Linux on ARM Laptops
    https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2019/04/things-are-looking-up-for-linux-on-arm-laptops

    Red Hat developers announce plans to bring desktop Fedora Linux to Windows-based ARM laptops using the 64-bit ARM Snapdragon 850 SoC. This post, Things Are Looking Up for Linux on ARM Laptops, was written by Joey Sneddon and first appeared on OMG! Ubuntu!.

  • New Project Brings Android Apps to the Linux Desktop
    https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2019/04/new-project-brings-android-apps-to-the-linux-desktop

    SPURV is a new open-source project that can run Android apps on Linux desktops, with full support for native hardware features like graphics acceleration. This post, New Project Brings Android Apps to the Linux Desktop, was written by Joey Sneddon and first appeared on OMG! Ubuntu!.