So good enough to get things done, even if it could use a little refinement?

So good that the only thing I can complain about is punctuation.

It's defcon, I think they could've pulled in a favor from google.

I do wonder if that's the case.

the only thing I'm seeing from your posts is "I'm a fucking idiot who doesn't understand that C is safer than any interpreted pretend-you're-safe language"

When have you heard of a JavaScript dangling pointer problem? Buffer overrun? Segfault?

The only hope to make Tox less insecure would be to run it under emscripten or http://zerovm.org/

Comparing C to Javascript makes no sense, and Javascript is NOT a safe language. Those issues you mentioned are due to programmer incompetence. Bad programmers will make bad code no matter what language they program in. Security should not rely on a language hand-holding bad programmers.

The classes of problems that one encounters in Ada, Haskell, OCaml, Rust, D or Go are vastly different than in languages w/o memory safety.

Writing secure network code in an non-safe language is something that shouldn't be taken lightly. Given the nature of the commits it is hard to comprehend that this product will ever achieve its stated aims.

It is secure by side effect, not proof.

No one is taking this project lightly and I don't know why you would suggest otherwise. You keep vaguely alluding to "the nature of the commits" but still have yet to give a single concrete example of what you have issue with. I take it that you don't actually know any C and are just repeating what you've read somewhere else.

I have extensive C experience, and I have looked through the code. While there have been plenty of bug fixes in the commit log - as is to be expected for a project of this scope in its pre-alpha/alpha stages - I have not seen anything that resembles a security threat, much less something as serious as the heartbleed bug that you keep bringing up for some reason.

At this point I have to conclude that you're either a troll with too much time on your hands, or being paid to spread FUD.

Plenty of HN users are: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=sublimetext#!/all/sort_by_date/0/s...

Isn't ycombinator all about creating and advertising for (new) companies, often with closed-source software and for-profit goals?

haha who is this guy. fight the machine, bro.

How do you have CSV data with a comma within a field?

You use another delimiter if you need commas. CSV isn't comma only (contrary to what the name implies), you could use '!' or anything else.

Enclose the field in quotes: a,"b,b",c

I'll be more interested when they've found a way to work with native binaries on windows, and handle creating/using binaries that take full advantage of the PE's import/export functionality. In reality it's not cross-platform if it doesn't support the almost guaranteed necessary features of the platform -- utilizing compiled dynamic libraries.

Open an issue. There is really only one contributor who works on Windows support. We need more people telling us what we are doing wrong on Windows.

Hahaeha, no, warden can and does scan EVERY SINGLE THING on your system. Good luck with fixing that whole "trusting companies that release games I like" thing.

I actually don't even play any blizzard games, but I thought I remembered them being sued over warden overstepping its bounds back in the day. I tried to search for it though and cannot find any evidence, so I guess I must have been wrong.

Edit: I did find mention of it on the Wikipedia article about Warden: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warden_(software)

On 23 June 2010 Blizzard updated the Warden Anti-Cheat Platform to version 2 - named Warden 2.0 - with World of Warcraft Patch 3.3.5.

Warden now scans Warcraft II and III game memory space only, with exception of a few tools.

Obviously it's a Wikipedia article, and no source listed for that claim, so who knows if it's accurate.

No, you'll be banned, because anticheats are malicious and will ban you if you're an outlier not allowing full access to your system.

Prove that Steam collects data about your system, except for hardware statistics that it asks you want to send. Being the first platform for gaming, I think that Steam gets audited by a lot of people quite often; despite that, I have heard nothing about Steam spying on its users.

The only "invasion of privacy" found was in VAC, which uses security through obscurity to deceive cheaters. When somebody got concerned about that, Gabe Newell immediately explained publicly the security mechanism, letting everybody with basic IT knowledge deduce that Valve has thought this quite thoroughly for privacy.

Last time I refused to participate in the Steam hardware survey, it was because the description of the data sent in the survey included "software installed on the system." If you use anything other than Steam on your system, that's not really acceptable. AFAIK, though, that is only if you join the Steam hardware survey.