Agreguesi i feed

When you’re looking at source code it can be helpful to have some evidence indicating who wrote it. Author tags give a surface level indication, but it turns out you can just lie and if someone isn’t paying attention when merging stuff there’s certainly a risk that a commit could be merged with an author field that doesn’t represent reality. Account compromise can make this even worse - a PR being opened by a compromised user is going to be hard to distinguish from the authentic user. In a world where supply chain security is an increasing concern, it’s easy to understand why people would want more evidence that code was actually written by the person it’s attributed to.

git has support for cryptographically signing commits and tags. Because git is about choice even if Linux isn’t, you can do this signing with OpenPGP keys, X.509 certificates, or SSH keys. You’re probably going to be unsurprised about my feelings around OpenPGP and the web of trust, and X.509 certificates are an absolute nightmare. That leaves SSH keys, but bare cryptographic keys aren’t terribly helpful in isolation - you need some way to make a determination about which keys you trust. If you’re using someting like GitHub you can extract that information from the set of keys associated with a user account1, but that means that a compromised GitHub account is now also a way to alter the set of trusted keys and also when was the last time you audited your keys and how certain are you that every trusted key there is still 100% under your control? Surely there’s a better way.

SSH Certificates

And, thankfully, there is. OpenSSH supports certificates, an SSH public key that’s been signed by some trusted party and so now you can assert that it’s trustworthy in some form. SSH Certificates also contain metadata in the form of Principals, a list of identities that the trusted party included in the certificate. These might simply be usernames, but they might also provide information about group membership. There’s also, unsurprisingly, native support in SSH for forwarding them (using the agent forwarding protocol), so you can keep your keys on your local system, ssh into your actual dev system, and have access to them without any additional complexity.

And, wonderfully, you can use them in git! Let’s find out how.

Local config

There’s two main parameters you need to set. First,

1 git config set gpg.format ssh

because unfortunately for historical reasons all the git signing config is under the gpg namespace even if you’re not using OpenPGP. Yes, this makes me sad. But you’re also going to need something else. Either user.signingkey needs to be set to the path of your certificate, or you need to set gpg.ssh.defaultKeyCommand to a command that will talk to an SSH agent and find the certificate for you (this can be helpful if it’s stored on a smartcard or something rather than on disk). Thankfully for you, I’ve written one. It will talk to an SSH agent (either whatever’s pointed at by the SSH_AUTH_SOCK environment variable or with the -agent argument), find a certificate signed with the key provided with the -ca argument, and then pass that back to git. Now you can simply pass -S to git commit and various other commands, and you’ll have a signature.

Validating signatures

This is a bit more annoying. Using native git tooling ends up calling out to ssh-keygen2, which validates signatures against a file in a format that looks somewhat like authorized-keys. This lets you add something like:

1 * cert-authority ssh-rsa AAAA…

which will match all principals (the wildcard) and succeed if the signature is made with a certificate that’s signed by the key following cert-authority. I recommend you don’t read the code that does this in git because I made that mistake myself, but it does work. Unfortunately it doesn’t provide a lot of granularity around things like “Does the certificate need to be valid at this specific time” and “Should the user only be able to modify specific files” and that kind of thing, but also if you’re using GitHub or GitLab you wouldn’t need to do this at all because they’ll just do this magically and put a “verified” tag against anything with a valid signature, right?

Haha. No.

Unfortunately while both GitHub and GitLab support using SSH certificates for authentication (so a user can’t push to a repo unless they have a certificate signed by the configured CA), there’s currently no way to say “Trust all commits with an SSH certificate signed by this CA”. I am unclear on why. So, I wrote my own. It takes a range of commits, and verifies that each one is signed with either a certificate signed by the key in CA_PUB_KEY or (optionally) an OpenPGP key provided in ALLOWED_PGP_KEYS. Why OpenPGP? Because even if you sign all of your own commits with an SSH certificate, anyone using the API or web interface will end up with their commits signed by an OpenPGP key, and if you want to have those commits validate you’ll need to handle that.

In any case, this should be easy enough to integrate into whatever CI pipeline you have. This is currently very much a proof of concept and I wouldn’t recommend deploying it anywhere, but I am interested in merging support for additional policy around things like expiry dates or group membership.

Doing it in hardware

Of course, certificates don’t buy you any additional security if an attacker is able to steal your private key material - they can steal the certificate at the same time. This can be avoided on almost all modern hardware by storing the private key in a separate cryptographic coprocessor - a Trusted Platform Module on PCs, or the Secure Enclave on Macs. If you’re on a Mac then Secretive has been around for some time, but things are a little harder on Windows and Linux - there’s various things you can do with PKCS#11 but you’ll hate yourself even more than you’ll hate me for suggesting it in the first place, and there’s ssh-tpm-agent except it’s Linux only and quite tied to Linux.

So, obviously, I wrote my own. This makes use of the go-attestation library my team at Google wrote, and is able to generate TPM-backed keys and export them over the SSH agent protocol. It’s also able to proxy requests back to an existing agent, so you can just have it take care of your TPM-backed keys and continue using your existing agent for everything else. In theory it should also work on Windows3 but this is all in preparation for a talk I only found out I was giving about two weeks beforehand, so I haven’t actually had time to test anything other than that it builds.

And, delightfully, because the agent protocol doesn’t care about where the keys are actually stored, this still works just fine with forwarding - you can ssh into a remote system and sign something using a private key that’s stored in your local TPM or Secure Enclave. Remote use can be as transparent as local use.

Wait, attestation?

Ah yes you may be wondering why I’m using go-attestation and why the term “attestation” is in my agent’s name. It’s because when I’m generating the key I’m also generating all the artifacts required to prove that the key was generated on a particular TPM. I haven’t actually implemented the other end of that yet, but if implemented this would allow you to verify that a key was generated in hardware before you issue it with an SSH certificate - and in an age of agentic bots accidentally exfiltrating whatever they find on disk, that gives you a lot more confidence that a commit was signed on hardware you own.

Conclusion

Using SSH certificates for git commit signing is great - the tooling is a bit rough but otherwise they’re basically better than every other alternative, and also if you already have infrastructure for issuing SSH certificates then you can just reuse it4 and everyone wins.

1. Did you know you can just download people’s SSH pubkeys from github from https://github.com/<username>.keys? Now you do ↩︎

2. Yes it is somewhat confusing that the keygen command does things other than generate keys ↩︎

3. This is more difficult than it sounds ↩︎

4. And if you don’t, by implementing this you now have infrastructure for issuing SSH certificates and can use that for SSH authentication as well. ↩︎

Hello and welcome to another update on what’s been happening at the GNOME Foundation. It’s been two weeks since my last update, and there’s been plenty going on, so let’s dive straight in.

GNOME 50!

My update wouldn’t be complete without mentioning this week’s GNOME 50 release. It looks like an amazing release with lots of great improvements! Many thanks to everyone who contributed and made it such a success.

The Foundation plays a critical role in these releases, whether it’s providing development infrastructure, organising events where planning takes place, or providing development funding. If you are reading this and have the means, please consider signing up as a Friend of GNOME. Even small regular donations make a huge difference.

Board Meeting

The Board of Directors had its regular monthly meeting on March 9th, and we had a full agenda. Highlights from the meeting included:

• The Board agreed to sign the Keep Android Open letter, as well as endorsing the United Nations Open Source Principles.
• We heard reports from a number of committees, including the Executive Committee, Finance Committee, Travel Committee, and Code of Conduct Committee. Committee presentations are a new addition to the Board meeting format, with the goal of pushing more activity out to committees, with the Board providing high-level oversight and coordination.
• Creation of a new bank account was authorized, which is needed as part of our ongoing finance and accounting development effort.
• The main discussion topic was Flathub and what the organizational arrangements could be for it in the future. There weren’t any concrete decisions made here, but the Board indicated that it’s open to different options and sees Flathub’s success as the main priority rather than being attached to any particular organisation type or location.
• The next regular Board meeting will be on April 13th.

Travel

The Travel Committee met both this week and last week, as it processed the initial batch of GUADEC sponsorship applications. As a result of this work the first set of approvals have been sent out. Documentation has also been provided for those who are applying for visas for their travel.

The membership of the current committee is quite new and it is having to figure out processes and decision-making principals as it goes, which is making its work more intensive than might normally be the case. We are starting to write up guidelines for future funding rounds, to help smooth the process.

Huge thanks to our committee members Asmit, Anisa, Julian, Maria, and Nirbeek, for taking on this important work.

Conferences

Planning and preparation for the 2026 editions of LAS and GUADEC have continued over the past fortnight. The call for papers for both events is a particular focus right now, and there are a couple of important deadlines to be aware of:

• If you want to speak at LAS 2026, the deadline for proposals is 23 March – that’s in just three days.
• The GUADEC 2026 call for abstracts has been extended to 27 March, so there is one more week to submit a talk.

There are teams behind each of these calls, reviewing and selecting proposals. Many thanks to the volunteers doing this work!

We are also excited to have sponsors come forward to support GUADEC.

Accounting

The Foundation has been undertaking a program of improvements to our accounting and finance systems in recent months. Those were put on hold for the audit fieldwork that took place at the beginning of March, but now that’s done, attention has turned to the remaining work items there.

We’ve been migrating to a new payments processing platform since the beginning of the year, and setup work has continued, including configuration to make it integrate correctly with our accounting software, migrating credit cards over from our previous solution, and creating new web forms which are going to be used for reimbursement requests in future.

There are a number of significant advantages to the new system, like the accounting integration, which are already helping to reduce workloads, and I’m looking forward to having the final pieces of the new system in place.

Another major change that is currently ongoing is that we are moving from a quarterly to a monthly cadence for our accounting. This is the cycle we move on to “complete” the accounts, with all data inputted and reconciled by the end of the cycle. The move to a monthly cycle will mean that we are generating finance reports on a more frequent basis, which will allow the Board to have a closer view on the organisation’s finances.

Finally, this week we also had our regular monthly “books” call with our accountant and finance advisor. This was our usual opportunity to resolve any questions that have come up in relation to the accounts, but we also discussed progress on the improvements that we’ve been making.

Infrastructure

On the infrastructure side, the main highlight in recent weeks has been the migration from Anubis to Fastly’s Next-Gen Web Application Firewall (WAF) for protecting our infrastructure. The result of this migration will be an increased level of protection from bots, while simultaneously not interfering in peoples’ way when they’re using our infra. The Fastly product provides sophisticated detection of threats plus the ability for us to write our own fine-grained detection rules, so we can adjust firewall behaviour as we go.

Huge thanks to Fastly for providing us with sponsorship for this service – it is a major improvement for our community and would not have been possible without their help.

That’s it for this update. Thanks for reading and be on the lookout for the next update, probably in two weeks!

One of the most optimized algorithms in any standard library is sorting. It is used everywhere so it must be fast. Thousands upon thousands of developer hours have been sunk into inventing new algorithms and making sort implementations faster. Pystd has a different design philosophy where fast compilation times and readability of the implementation have higher priority than absolute performance. Perf still very much matters, it has to be fast, but not at the cost of 10x compilation time.

This leads to the natural question of how much slower such an implementation would be compared to a production quality one. Could it even be faster? (Spoilers: no) The only way to find out is to run performance benchmarks on actual code.

To keep things simple there is only one test set, sorting 10'000'000 consecutive 64 bit integers that have been shuffled to a random order which is the same for all algorithms. This is not an exhaustive test by any means but you have to start somewhere. All tests used GCC 15.2 using -O2 optimization. Pystd code was not thoroughly hand optimized, I only fixed (some of the) obvious hotspots.

Stable sort

Pystd uses mergesort for stable sorting. The way the C++ standard specifies stable sort means that most implementations probably use it as well. I did not dive in the code to find out. Pystd's merge sort implementation consists of ~220 lines of code. It can be read on this page.

Stdlibc++ can do the sort in 0.9 seconds whereas Pystd takes .94 seconds. Getting to within 5% with such a simple implementation is actually quite astonishing. Even when considering all the usual caveats where it might completely fall over with a different input data distribution and all that.

Regular sort

Both stdlibc++ and Pystd use introsort. Pystd's implementation has ~150 lines of code but it also uses heapsort, which has a further 100 lines of code). Code for introsort is here, and heapsort is here.

Stdlibc++ gets the sort done in 0.76 seconds whereas Pystd takes 0.82 seconds. This makes it approximately 8% slower. It's not great, but getting within 10% with a few evening's work is still a pretty good result. Especially since, and I'm speculating here, std::sort has seen a lot more optimization work than std::stable_sort because it is used more.

For heavy duty number crunching this would be way too slow. But for moderate data set sizes the performance difference might be insignificant for many use cases.

Note that all of these are faster (note: did not measure) than libc's qsort because it requires an indirect function call on every comparison i.e. the comparison method can not be inlined.

Where does the time go?

Valgrind will tell you that quite easily.

This picture shows quite clearly why big O notation can be misleading. Both quicksort (the inner loop of introsort) and heapsort have "the same" average time complexity but every call to heapsort takes approximately 4.5 times as long.

Trevor Milton, the pardoned founder of Nikola, is seeking $1 billion for AI-powered autonomous planes through a new venture called SyberJet. The Tech Buzz reports: "Autonomous planes will be 10 times harder than Nikola ever was," Milton told the Wall Street Journal in a rare interview. It's a remarkable admission from someone whose last venture collapsed under the weight of securities fraud charges after he overstated the capabilities of Nikola's electric and hydrogen-powered trucks. Milton was convicted in 2022 on three counts of fraud for misleading investors about Nikola's technology, including staging a video that made it appear a truck prototype was driving under its own power when it was actually rolling downhill. The conviction sent him to prison and turned Nikola into a cautionary tale about startup hype culture. His pardon, which came earlier this year, sparked immediate controversy in venture capital and legal circles. Now he's betting that AI and autonomous aviation represent a clean slate. SyberJet appears focused on developing artificial intelligence systems capable of piloting aircraft without human intervention - a technical challenge that's stumped even well-funded players like Boeing and Airbus. [...] Milton hasn't detailed SyberJet's technical approach or revealed who's backing the venture. The company's website remains sparse, and aviation industry sources say they haven't seen concrete demonstrations of the technology. That opacity echoes the early days of Nikola, when Milton made sweeping claims about revolutionary trucks that existed mostly in renderings and promotional videos. If you need a quick refresher on the Nikola saga, here's a timeline of key events: June, 2016: Nikola Motor Receives Over 7,000 Preorders Worth Over $2.3 Billion For Its Electric Truck December, 2016: Nikola Motor Company Reveals Hydrogen Fuel Cell Truck With Range of 1,200 Miles February, 2020: Nikola Motors Unveils Hybrid Fuel-Cell Concept Truck With 600-Mile Range June, 2020: Nikola Founder Exaggerated the Capability of His Debut Truck September, 2020: Nikola Motors Accused of Massive Fraud, Ocean of Lies September, 2020: Nikola Admits Prototype Was Rolling Downhill In Promo Video September, 2020: Nikola Founder Trevor Milton Steps Down as Chairman in Battle With Short Seller October, 2020: Nikola Stock Falls 14 Percent After CEO Downplays Badger Truck Plans November, 2020: Nikola Stock Plunges As Company Cancels Badger Pickup Truck July, 2021: Nikola Founder Trevor Milton Indicted on Three Counts of Fraud December, 2021: EV Startup Nikola Agrees To $125 Million Settlement September, 2022: Nikola Founder Lied To Investors About Tech, Prosecutor Says in Fraud Trial

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: The FBI has resumed purchasing reams of Americans' data and location histories to aid federal investigations, the agency's director, Kash Patel, testified to lawmakers on Wednesday. This is the first time since 2023 that the FBI has confirmed it was buying access to people's data collected from data brokers, who source much of their information -- including location data -- from ordinary consumer phone apps and games, per Politico. At the time, then-FBI director Christopher Wray told senators that the agency had bought access to people's location data in the past but that it was not actively purchasing it. When asked by U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, if the FBI would commit to not buying Americans' location data, Patel said that the agency "uses all tools ... to do our mission." "We do purchase commercially available information that is consistent with the Constitution and the laws under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act -- and it has led to some valuable intelligence for us," Patel testified Wednesday. Wyden said buying information on Americans without obtaining a warrant was an "outrageous end-run around the Fourth Amendment," referring to the constitutional law that protects people in America from device searches and data seizures.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Two years have passed since I last shared my Friday app icon sketches, but the sketching itself hasn't stopped.

For me, it's the best way to figure out the right metaphors before we move to final pixels. These sketches are just one part of the GNOME Design Team's wider effort to keep our icons consistent and meaningful—it is an endeavor that’s been going on for years.

If you design a GNOME app following the GNOME Design Guidelines, feel free to request an icon to be made for you. If you are serious and apply for inclusion in GNOME Circle, you are way more likely to get a designer's attention.

Previously

Cloudflare is appealing a 14.2 million-euro fine from Italy for refusing to comply with its "Piracy Shield" law, which requires blocking access to websites on its 1.1.1.1 DNS service within 30 minutes. The company argues the system lacks oversight, risks widespread overblocking, and could undermine core Internet infrastructure. Ars Technica's Jon Brodkin reports: Piracy Shield is "a misguided Italian regulatory scheme designed to protect large rightsholder interests at the expense of the broader Internet," Cloudflare said in a blog post this week. "After Cloudflare resisted registering for Piracy Shield and challenged it in court, the Italian communications regulator, AGCOM, fined Cloudflare... We appealed that fine on March 8, and we continue to challenge the legality of Piracy Shield itself." Cloudflare called the fine of 14.2 million euros ($16.4 million) "staggering." AGCOM issued the penalty in January 2026, saying Cloudflare flouted requirements to disable DNS resolution of domain names and routing of traffic to IP addresses reported by copyright holders. Cloudflare had previously resisted a blocking order it received in February 2025, arguing that it would require installing a filter on DNS requests that would raise latency and negatively affect DNS resolution for sites that aren't subject to the dispute over piracy. Cloudflare co-founder and CEO Matthew Prince said that censoring the 1.1.1.1 DNS resolver would force the firm "not just to censor the content in Italy but globally." Piracy Shield was designed to combat pirated streams of live sports events, requiring network operators to block domain names and IP addresses within 30 minutes of receiving a copyright notification. Cloudflare said the fine should have been capped at 140,000 euros ($161,000), or 2 percent of its Italian earnings, but that "AGCOM calculated the fine based on our global revenue, resulting in a penalty nearly 100 times higher than the legal limit." Despite its complaints about the size of the fine, Cloudflare said the principles at stake "are even larger" than the financial penalty. "Piracy Shield is an unsupervised electronic portal through which an unidentified set of Italian media companies can submit websites and IP addresses that online service providers registered with Piracy Shield are then required to block within 30 minutes," Cloudflare said. Cloudflare is pushing for the law to be struck down, arguing that it is "incompatible with EU law, most notably the Digital Services Act (DSA), which requires that any content restriction be proportionate and subject to strict procedural safeguards." In addition to appealing the fine, Cloudflare says it will continue to challenge Piracy Shield in Italian courts, engage with EU officials, and seek full access to AGCOM's Piracy Shield records.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

With today's latest Stitch updates, Google is trying to make "vibe design" happen, reports The Verge's Jay Peters. The AI-native design platform encourages users to describe goals, feelings, or inspiration in "natural language," rather than starting with traditional blueprints. In a blog post, Google Labs Product Manager Rustin Banks says that Stitch can turn those inputs into interactive prototypes, automatically map user flows, and support real-time iteration. It introduces voice capabilities that allow users to "speak directly to [the] canvas" for feedback or changes. Tools like DESIGN.md also help users create reusable design systems across various projects.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Longtime Slashdot reader UnknowingFool writes: Users of Samsung PCs are reporting the inability to access the C: drive after the Windows 11 February update. The bug seems to be in connection with the Samsung Galaxy Connect app, which allows Samsung phones and tablets to connect to Windows machines. [A previous stable version of the app has been re-released to prevent this problem from spreading.] This parody explains the situation with humor. The issue stems from update KB5077181 and is impacting Samsung PCs running Windows 11 25H2 or 24H2. Microsoft and Samsung have confirmed the issue and published a workaround, but as PCWorld notes, it will take some time. The workaround "requires removing the Samsung application, then asking Windows to repair the drive permissions and assigning a new owner, then restoring the Windows default permissions, including patching in some custom code that Microsoft wrote."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

It’s clear LLMs are one of the biggest changes in technology ever. The rate of progress is astounding: recently due to a configuration mistake I accidentally used Claude Sonnet 3.5 (released ~2 years ago) instead of Opus 4.6 for a task and looked at the output and thought “what is this garbage”?

But daily now: Opus 4.6 is able to generate reasonable PoC level Rust code for complex tasks for me. It’s not perfect – it’s a combination of exhausting and exhilarating to find the 10% absolutely bonkers/broken code that still makes it past subagents.

So yes I use LLMs every day, but I will be clear: if I could push a button to “un-invent” them I absolutely would because I think the long term issues in larger society (not being able to trust any media, and many of the things from Dario’s recent blog etc.) will outweigh the benefits.

But since we can’t un-invent them: here’s my opinion on how they should be used. As a baseline, I agree with a lot from this doc from Oxide about LLMs. What I want to talk about is especially around some of the norms/tools that I see as important for LLM use, following principles similar to those.

On framing: there’s “core” software vs “bespoke”. An entirely new capability of course is for e.g. a nontechnical restaurant owner to use an LLM to generate (“vibe code”) a website (excepting hopefully online orderings and payments!). I’m not overly concerned about this.

Whereas “core” software is what organizations/businesses provide/maintain for others. I work for a company (Red Hat) that produces a lot of this. I am sure no one would want to run for real an operating system, cluster filesystem, web browser, monitoring system etc. that was primarily “vibe coded”.

And while I respect people and groups that are trying to entirely ban LLM use, I don’t think that’s viable for at least my space.

Hence the subject of this blog is my perspective on how LLMs should be used for “core” software: not vibe coding, but using LLMs responsibly and intelligently – and always under human control and review.

Agents should amplify and be controlled by humans

I think most of the industry would agree we can’t give responsibility to LLMs. That means they must be overseen by humans. If they’re overseen by a human, then I think they should be amplifying what that human thinks/does as a baseline – intersected with the constraints of the task of course.

On “amplification”: Everyone using a LLM to generate content should inject their own system prompt (e.g. AGENTS.md) or equivalent. Here’s mine – notice I turn off all the emoji etc. and try hard to tune down bulleted lists because that’s not my style. This is a truly baseline thing to do.

Now most LLM generated content targeted for core software is still going to need review, but just ensuring that the baseline matches what the human does helps ensure alignment.

Pull request reviews

Let’s focus on a very classic problem: pull request reviews. Many projects have wired up a flow such that when a PR comes in, it gets reviewed by a model automatically. Many projects and tools pitch this. We use one on some of my projects.

But I want to get away from this because in my experience these reviews are a combination of:

• Extremely insightful and correct things (there’s some amazing fine-tuning and tool use that must have happened to find some issues pointed out by some of these)
• Annoying nitpicks that no one cares about (not handling spaces in a filename in a shell script used for tests)
• Broken stuff like getting confused by things that happened after its training cutoff (e.g. Gemini especially seems to get confused by referencing the current date, and also is unaware of newer Rust features, etc)

In practice, we just want the first of course.

How I think it should work:

• A pull request comes in
• It gets auto-assigned to a human on the team for review
• A human contributing to that project is running their own agents (wherever: could be local or in the cloud) using their own configuration (but of course still honoring the project’s default development setup and the project’s AGENTS.md etc)
• A new containerized/sandboxed agent may be spawned automatically, or perhaps the human needs to click a button to do so – or perhaps the human sees the PR come in and thinks “this one needs a deeper review, didn’t we hit a perf issue with the database before?” and adds that to a prompt for the agent.
• The agent prepares a draft review that only the human can see.
• The human reviews/edits the draft PR review, and has the opportunity to remove confabulations, add their own content etc. And to send the agent back to look more closely at some code (i.e. this part can be a loop)
• When the human is happy they click the “submit review” button.
• Goal: it is 100% clear what parts are LLM generated vs human generated for the reader.

I wrote this agent skill to try to make this work well, and if you search you can see it in action in a few places, though I haven’t truly tried to scale this up.

I think the above matches the vision of LLMs amplifying humans.

Code Generation

There’s no doubt that LLMs can be amazing code generators, and I use them every day for that. But for any “core” software I work on, I absolutely review all of the output – not just superficially, and changes to core algorithms very closely.

At least in my experience the reality is still there’s that percentage of the time when the agent decided to reimplement base64 encoding for no reason, or disable the tests claiming “the environment didn’t support it” etc.

And to me it’s still a baseline for “core” software to require another human review to merge (per above!) with their own customized LLM assisting them (ideally a different model, etc).

FOSS vs closed

Of course, my position here is biased a bit by working on FOSS – I still very much believe in that, and working in a FOSS context can be quite different than working in a “closed environment” where a company/organization may reasonably want to (and be able to) apply uniform rules across a codebase.

While for sure LLMs allow organizations to create their own Linux kernel filesystems or bespoke Kubernetes forks or virtual machine runtime or whatever – it’s not clear to me that it is a good idea for most to do so. I think shared (FOSS) infrastructure that is productized by various companies, provided as a service and maintained by human experts in that problem domain still makes sense. And how we develop that matters a lot.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Britain plans to consider requiring labels on AI-generated content to protect consumers from disinformation and deepfakes, the government said on Wednesday, as it outlined other areas of focus to tackle the evolving global challenge. Technology minister Liz Kendall stressed the need to strike the right balance between protecting the creative industries and allowing the AI sector to innovate, saying in a statement that the government would take time to "get this right." The next phase of the government's work on copyright and AI would also look at the harms posed by digital replicas without consent, ways for creators to control their work online and support for independent creative organizations, she said. [...] Louise Popple, a copyright expert at law firm Taylor Wessing, noted that the government had not ruled out a broad exception that would allow AI developers to train on copyright works. "That's a subtle difference of approach and could be interpreted to mean that everything is still up for grabs" she said. "It feels very much like the hard issues are being kicked down the road by the government." In 2024, Britain proposed easing copyright rules to let developers train models on lawfully accessed material, with creators able to reserve their rights. On Wednesday, Kendall said that having engaged with creatives, AI firms, industry bodies, unions and academics, the government had concluded it "no longer has a preferred option." "We will help creatives control how their work is used. This sits at the heart of our ambition for creatives – including independent and smaller creative organizations -- to be paid fairly," she said.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Meta is shutting down its VR social platform Horizon Worlds, which was once a key piece of the pivot to the metaverse. The company said the app will be taken off the Quest store at the end of March, and fully removed from Quest headsets by June 15. After that date, it will shift to a standalone "mobile-only experience." CNBC reports: The shift for Horizon Worlds, which was once a central part of the company's push into virtual reality, comes weeks after Meta cut over 1,000 employees from Reality Labs, the unit responsible for the metaverse. [...] The social platform has never drawn more than a couple hundred thousand active users a month, CNBC previously reported. The virtual 3D social network where avatars could interact and play games with other users officially launched in late 2021. It operated exclusively on the Quest VR platform until Meta launched a mobile app version in September 2023. The mobile version of Horizon Worlds was built to provide an entry point for users without VR headsets, functioning similarly to Roblox.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Longtime Slashdot reader internet-redstar writes: Nearly a trillion dollars has been wiped from software stocks in 2026, with hedge funds making billions shorting Salesforce, HubSpot, and Atlassian. At FOSDEM 2026, cURL maintainer Daniel Stenberg shut down his bug bounty program after AI-generated slop overwhelmed his team. A new article on HackerNoon argues that most commercial SaaS could inevitably become OpenSource, not out of ideology but economics. The author points to Proxmox replacing VMware at enterprise scale and startups like Holosign replicating DocuSign at $19/month flat as evidence. The catch, the article claims, is that maintainers who refuse to embrace AI tools risk being forked, or simply replicated from scratch, by those who do.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Dave Knott shares a report from the New York Times: On Wednesday, the Association for Computing Machinery, the world's largest society of computing professionals, said Drs. Charles Bennett and Gilles Brassard had won this year's Turing Award for their work on quantum cryptography and related technologies. The Turing Award, which was introduced in 1966, is often called the Nobel Prize of computing, and it includes a $1 million prize, which the two scientists will share. [...] The two met in 1979 while swimming in the Atlantic just off the north shore of Puerto Rico. They were taking a break while attending an academic conference in San Juan. Dr. Bennett swam up to Dr. Brassard and suggested they use quantum mechanics to create a bank note that could never be forged. Collaborating between Montreal and New York, they applied Dr. Bennett's idea to subway tokens rather than bank notes. In a research paper published in 1983, they showed that their quantum subway tokens could never be forged, even if someone managed to steal the subway turnstile housing the elaborate hardware needed to read them. This led to quantum cryptography. After describing their new form of encryption in a research paper published in 1984, they demonstrated the technology with a physical experiment five years later. Called BB84, their system used photons -- particles of light -- to create encryption keys used to lock and unlock digital data. Thanks to the laws of quantum mechanics, the behavior of a photon changes if someone looks at it. This means that if anyone tries to steal the keys, he or she will leave a telltale sign of the attempted theft -- a bit like breaking the seal on an aspirin bottle.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Version:next-20260318 (linux-next) Released:2026-03-18

n8n (CVE-2025-68613) is an open-source automation tool used to connect APIs, databases, and SaaS apps into workflows. It is commonly used to move data between systems, trigger jobs, and tie services together, and in many environments, it also holds credentials and access to internal services.

ProPublica reports that federal cybersecurity reviewers had serious, yearslong concerns about Microsoft's GCC High cloud offering, yet they approved it anyway because the product was already deeply embedded across government. As one member of the team put it: "The package is a pile of shit." From the report: In late 2024, the federal government's cybersecurity evaluators rendered a troubling verdict on one of Microsoft's biggest cloud computing offerings. The tech giant's "lack of proper detailed security documentation" left reviewers with a "lack of confidence in assessing the system's overall security posture," according to an internal government report reviewed by ProPublica. For years, reviewers said, Microsoft had tried and failed to fully explain how it protects sensitive information in the cloud as it hops from server to server across the digital terrain. Given that and other unknowns, government experts couldn't vouch for the technology's security. Such judgments would be damning for any company seeking to sell its wares to the U.S. government, but it should have been particularly devastating for Microsoft. The tech giant's products had been at the heart of two major cybersecurity attacks against the U.S. in three years. In one, Russian hackers exploited a weakness to steal sensitive data from a number of federal agencies, including the National Nuclear Security Administration. In the other, Chinese hackers infiltrated the email accounts of a Cabinet member and other senior government officials. The federal government could be further exposed if it couldn't verify the cybersecurity of Microsoft's Government Community Cloud High, a suite of cloud-based services intended to safeguard some of the nation's most sensitive information. Yet, in a highly unusual move that still reverberates across Washington, the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program, or FedRAMP, authorized the product anyway, bestowing what amounts to the federal government's cybersecurity seal of approval. FedRAMP's ruling -- which included a kind of "buyer beware" notice to any federal agency considering GCC High -- helped Microsoft expand a government business empire worth billions of dollars. "BOOM SHAKA LAKA," Richard Wakeman, one of the company's chief security architects, boasted in an online forum, celebrating the milestone with a meme of Leonardo DiCaprio in "The Wolf of Wall Street." It was not the type of outcome that federal policymakers envisioned a decade and a half ago when they embraced the cloud revolution and created FedRAMP to help safeguard the government's cybersecurity. The program's layers of review, which included an assessment by outside experts, were supposed to ensure that service providers like Microsoft could be entrusted with the government's secrets. But ProPublica's investigation -- drawn from internal FedRAMP memos, logs, emails, meeting minutes, and interviews with seven former and current government employees and contractors -- found breakdowns at every juncture of that process. It also found a remarkable deference to Microsoft, even as the company's products and practices were central to two of the most damaging cyberattacks ever carried out against the government.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Musi, a free music streaming app that had tens of millions of iPhone downloads and garnered plenty of controversy over its method of acquiring music, has lost an attempt to get back on Apple's App Store. A federal judge dismissed Musi's lawsuit against Apple with prejudice and sanctioned Musi's lawyers for "mak[ing] up facts to fill the perceived gaps in Musi's case." Musi built a streaming service without striking its own deals with copyright holders. It did so by playing music from YouTube, writing in its 2024 lawsuit against Apple that "the Musi app plays or displays content based on the user's own interactions with YouTube and enhances the user experience via Musi's proprietary technology." Musi's app displayed its own ads but let users remove them for a one-time fee of $5.99. Musi claimed it complied with YouTube's terms, but Apple removed it from the App Store in September 2024. Musi does not offer an Android app. Musi alleged that Apple delisted its app based on "unsubstantiated" intellectual property claims from YouTube and that Apple violated its own Developer Program License Agreement (DPLA) by delisting the app. Musi was handed a resounding defeat yesterday in two rulings from US District Judge Eumi Lee in the Northern District of California. Lee found that Apple can remove apps "with or without cause," as stipulated in the developer agreement. Lee wrote (PDF): "The plain language of the DPLA governs because it is clear and explicit: Apple may 'cease marketing, offering, and allowing download by end-users of the [Musi app] at any time, with or without cause, by providing notice of termination.' Based on this language, Apple had the right to cease offering the Musi app without cause if Apple provided notice to Musi. The complaint alleges, and Musi does not dispute, that Apple gave Musi the required notice. Therefore, Apple's decision to remove the Musi app from the App Store did not breach the DPLA."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

sciencehabit shares a report from Science.org: In The Martian, fictional astronaut Mark Watney survives the wasteland of Mars by growing potatoes in lunar soil -- with a bit of help from human poop. The idea may not be so far-fetched. In a preprint posted this month on bioRxiv, researchers show potatoes can indeed grow in the equivalent of Moon dust, though they need a lot of help from compost found on Earth. To make the discovery, scientists first had to re-create lunar regolith -- the loose, powdery layer that blankets the Moon's surface. To replicate that in the lab, David Handy, a space biologist at Oregon State University (OSU), and his colleagues used a mix of crushed minerals and volcanic ash that matched the chemistry of the Moon. But lunar regolith is entirely devoid of the organic matter that plants need to grow. "Turning an inorganic, inhospitable bucket of glorified sand into something that can support plant growth is complex," says Anna-Lisa Paul, a plant molecular biologist at the University of Florida not involved with the work. So Handy and his colleagues added vermicompost -- organic waste from worms -- into the regolith. They found that a mix with 5% compost allowed the potatoes to grow while still emulating the stressful conditions of the lunar environment. After almost 2 months of growth, the team harvested the tubers, freeze-dried them, and ground them up for further testing. Analysis of the potatoes' DNA showed stress-related genes had been activated. The potatoes also had higher concentrations of copper and zinc than Earth-grown ones, which may make them dangerous for human consumption. The plants' nutritional value, though, was similar to traditional potatoes -- a surprise to the scientists, who expected lower levels of nutrition "because the plants might have been working overtime to overcome certain stressors," Handy says.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Nvidia unveiled its Vera Rubin Space-1 system for powering AI workloads in orbital data centers. "Space computing, the final frontier, has arrived," said CEO Jensen Huang. "As we deploy satellite constellations and explore deeper into space, intelligence must live wherever data is generated." CNBC reports: In a press release, the company said that its Vera Rubin Space-1 Module, which includes the IGX Thor and Jetson Orin, will be used on space missions led by multiple companies. The chips are specifically "engineered for size-, weight- and power-constrained environments." Partners include Axiom Space, Starcloud and Planet. Huang said Nvidia is working with partners on a new computer for orbital data centers, but there are still engineering hurdles to overcome. "In space, there's no convection, there's just radiation," Huang said during his GTC keynote, "and so we have to figure out how to cool these systems out in space, but we've got lots of great engineers working on it."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.