Esophagus4 9 hours 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 9 hours ago

    Strict chain of custody requirements prohibit this kind of thing from being SaaS.

    • Esophagus4 8 hours 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 10 hours ago

I found the whole thing inspirational

OutOfHere 10 hours ago

This has to be the dumbest argument for Rust that I have ever seen. It doesn't belong on LWN.

  • pharrington 10 hours ago

    Do you disagree that its easy to cross compile and create static binaries with?

    • OutOfHere 9 hours 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.

  • userbinator 10 hours ago

    I suspect it's there because it ticks a bunch of virtue-signaling boxes. DEI, Rust, some "safety and security" boogeyman.