This looks to be a very specific tool to check URLs on the command line. Terminal emulators don't care about that. Even shells running in those terminal emulators don't care about those specifics because why would they. One could easily want to do something with a funny url like that that doesn't involve content fetching etc.
As a child in the 1980s we'd go for long walks in the woods. One time a friend brought a pair of 30 inch bolt cutters with him, you know, as a personality extension. And of course, there was some dubious reason to use them, and he was a hero for being over-provisioned.
A solution like this is those bolt cutters - I can admire it, but the odds I'm out on a walk with it, is very, very low.
Now if you work in a bolt factory, sure, this can run on every laptop, every user account, every environment.
But I'd hope my edge firewalls are L7 scanning for cyrillic 'i' in my domains cause otherwise I'm just gonna connect and get myself hacked.
It's about as safe as trusting all the add-ons in your IDE, and all the packages your node app pulls from random package repos.
It's just the plausible blame that shifts.
If you read the script before you pipe it into your shell, it's safe.
And if that's not safe, then it's just as dangerous to trust that an unopened bottle of ketchup is safe.
Nothing is safe. Everything is a judgement. Being culpable is a professional service. Lucky people out-earn unlucky people. The world is a scary place.
No, not really. This reads like ornate hand waving to distract from different threat models and situations.
A lot of safety is down to accountability. A distribution through an attributable marketplace or being verifiably signed.
Safety isn't a performative action, so reading a script may still confuse you or you may miss subtleties. But opting for a safer install mechanism makes a huge difference, which is we always ought to prefer apt, dnf, over the likes of curlbash, brew, npm.
This is why we have linux distributions with maintainers who can take at least a basic look at the software, vet dependencies and run it through a test suite. And they only have to do that once for each new version and not again and again for each download.
My terminal is set to CP437 and uses a font incapable of rendering anything else.
Then again, I don't blindly pipe directly from the network into the shell either.
Handy! I feel like this should be built into the terminal emulator though?
This looks to be a very specific tool to check URLs on the command line. Terminal emulators don't care about that. Even shells running in those terminal emulators don't care about those specifics because why would they. One could easily want to do something with a funny url like that that doesn't involve content fetching etc.
This is an incredible tool.
As a child in the 1980s we'd go for long walks in the woods. One time a friend brought a pair of 30 inch bolt cutters with him, you know, as a personality extension. And of course, there was some dubious reason to use them, and he was a hero for being over-provisioned.
A solution like this is those bolt cutters - I can admire it, but the odds I'm out on a walk with it, is very, very low.
Now if you work in a bolt factory, sure, this can run on every laptop, every user account, every environment.
But I'd hope my edge firewalls are L7 scanning for cyrillic 'i' in my domains cause otherwise I'm just gonna connect and get myself hacked.
> curl -sSL https://install.example-cli.dev | bash # safe
This is not and has never been safe.
It's about as safe as trusting all the add-ons in your IDE, and all the packages your node app pulls from random package repos.
It's just the plausible blame that shifts.
If you read the script before you pipe it into your shell, it's safe.
And if that's not safe, then it's just as dangerous to trust that an unopened bottle of ketchup is safe.
Nothing is safe. Everything is a judgement. Being culpable is a professional service. Lucky people out-earn unlucky people. The world is a scary place.
No, not really. This reads like ornate hand waving to distract from different threat models and situations.
A lot of safety is down to accountability. A distribution through an attributable marketplace or being verifiably signed.
Safety isn't a performative action, so reading a script may still confuse you or you may miss subtleties. But opting for a safer install mechanism makes a huge difference, which is we always ought to prefer apt, dnf, over the likes of curlbash, brew, npm.
This is why we have linux distributions with maintainers who can take at least a basic look at the software, vet dependencies and run it through a test suite. And they only have to do that once for each new version and not again and again for each download.
it really irks me that this is the default way to install micromamba
https://mamba.readthedocs.io/en/latest/installation/micromam...