Interesting, but a Vectrex without a vector display is like a fish without water.

At least they went with OLED, which is as close as you can get with technology that's still in mass production. It would be a crime to use LCD for this.

But the resolution is too low to do it justice. They’d need a high dpi display with crazy good beam emulation to be even close to pulling off something acceptable. Just can’t see it with this.

It’s a 5 inch display. 800x600 in that size is hard to see already.

What I’m curious is how far they can push the brightness and how quickly the processor can fade the whole frame buffer.

It seems like the development of SoftHSM2 has stalled quite a bit. There is still a lot of user interest, but very little action in terms of management of the project. There are many pull requests and issues raised by users, but very little in terms of taking care of those.

SoftHSM was originally developed as a PKCS#11 and HSM test platform for OpenDNSSEC, but later took on a life on itself. The reason for that is that there is a lot of need to use software that talks to Hardware Security Modules, but without actually spending the cash of buying one, mostly for development. But it has also become a cornerstone of a lot of other products, for example IBM Red Hat Identity Management.

NLNet Labs states in the GitHub issue linked: "Given the above, the current state is that development on SoftHSM v2 is dormant and not likely to pick up significantly in the near future. We are conferring as a team on how to proceed in the future, but this will likely take us until at least the summer of 2024."

So the future of SoftHSM does not look very great. Are there any organizations reading this willing to take up this challenge, and make the future of this small "insignificant" open source project great again?

Not if you want to deliver e-mail to Google, they recently added this as a requirement.

Yep. I have a catch-all email address for a domain that forwards all mail to Gmail and that stopped working somewhere in the Jul-Aug timeframe.

Had to set up DomainKeys to fix the issue.

Still working fine here. And about to switch to no-DNS emails (alice@[x.x.x.x] and bob@[IPv6:...] in the SMTP specs)

Highly unlikely you'd be able to deliver any mail to any significant operator after that switch.

I did run a few months in no-DNS email mode without issues, but was 2-3 years ago. I know regulation and lawyers may be needed if significant conflicts happen with unreasonable system administrators.

It is critically important to keep the emails flowing independently from the DNS mafia/racket, like the web, but I guess we all very know that here on HN.

> It is critically important to keep the emails flowing independently from the DNS mafia/racket

It's really not a racket and it's really not critical.

> It's really not a racket and it's really not critical.

This means, we cannot agree.

Me too. Still have a couple of books (in Swedish) on the subject. I don't have the heart to throw them away.

Did you use COMAL too?!

Yes, export regulations were heavy back then. To have proper SSL in your Netscape, you had to import this patch file from Australia. And then we had this whole Crypto Wars thing going on. Look at Steven Levy's excellent book on the subject, or search on the Wired archives.

There are a number of different tools for writing internet-drafts. See here: https://tools.ietf.org/tools/

The downside of this is that the lookup is done online, and every use of an individual is tracked per service. This is not something that I am comfortable with.

Yes, I use it often. My Debian installations use Tor for installing updates. Just as an example.

In practice internal only DNS names will always leak to external resolvers in one way or another. Pretending otherwise is very naive.

The problem I have with ^B is that the b is too far away from ctrl. A is much closer, which makes it a much faster one-hand press.