sooo i tried using the new b4 review TUI for my last U-Boot PR and it was a bit of a disaster. I understand the process being a bit clunky to begin with but the whole process of actually setting up a branch was really involved. It failed to update a bunch of series on pathwork, and the b4 ty emails it generated had completely wrong commit SHAs
I get that the intention is primarily patch review but even for that it feels less like a tool i can utilise to automate the process and more like an imposed workflow that offers little flexibility
the thing that really pissed me off in the end though was realising that b4 review was VIBE CODED, kinda explains everything... This tool had so much potential but i struggle to see now how it will deliver when AI is involved in building it
hot take: if you think that you have to fear that contributors will abandon your software project because you ban llm contributions, there might be a bigger problem around
๐ช okay, whoever the fuck is emailing the Rust Foundation, threatening various Rust team members, and threatening to literally stalk people at a public event next week
fuck you
this discussion was supposed to be over and we were supposed to spend the rest of the day distracted, not trying to do even more damage control because you fuckers don't know how to actually do activism
you are an active harm to the causes you support and you're making a lot of work for people who are on the same fucking side as you
responsible disclosure in the future: not dropping the vuln on a Friday afternoon or the weekend.
I dunno who needs to hear this but I got a D in Linux operating systems in college. If youโre passionate about something donโt let some institutional structure tell you that youโre not good at it
New monthly blog post is up!
"postmarketOS in 2026-04: new boot splash"
https://postmarketos.org/blog/2026/05/10/pmOS-update-2026-04/
Read root-owned files as an unprivileged user:
https://github.com/0xdeadbeefnetwork/ssh-keysign-pwn/blob/main/README.md
If a "security researcher" files a GHSA advisory that's obvious slop (e.g. quoting function signatures that don't exist) is it right to somehow make the report public (as way of punishment) or just close it by clicking really hard and getting on with your life?
If the former, is that even possible in GitHub?
Really nice job @fun tracking down **and** fixing a 20 year old bug in #openrc ๐