General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

George Albany
Brodie Robertson
comments

Comments by "George Albany" (@Spartan322) on "Brodie Robertson" channel.

Ah the classic toxic dev problem, probonopd really should be punished by being outed from his own project, either via a fork that everyone rushes over to or by core contributors pushing him to step down, when a dev screws up as much as someone like probonopd, he really needs to be pushed out of the project, specifically when he is intentionally screwing over everyone else simply because he doesn't like them and their tools, even when it cost him no maintenance time and would reduce bug complaints. Literally his own worst enemy.
142
Once again Linus' rants are entirely and wholly correct, even if he is a bit hostile fact is that folks really should actually listen to Linus even more then they already do, he rarely ever says something, especially of project management or FOSS in general, that is wrong, and when he does its usually only in technicalities.
87
75% of the time the problem is also just straight up gnome, perhaps it be better if they simply had less influence over wayland in general given they straight up don't actually care about supporting it so long as they disagree with it.
85
This is one of the biggest continual issues on Linux, violating backwards compatibility, like most distros are better then Apple, but the fact that every few years someone feels the need to break userspace over and over and then 9 times out of 10 they stubbornly refuse to correct the issue themselves (requiring a patch at least to correct it) is a big contributor to why Linux has such a hard time picking up marketshare, it makes the kernel, and by extension the distros and the things we all rely on said distros, appear (and I would say it would outright just make it) extremely unstable in just the right ways that nobody can correct it.
79
I used to use Manjaro and its insane how often I suffered from dependency breakages because the package stuff, it was like every week I had to actively manage my packages cause they just kept breaking, once you get to a certain point on Manjaro you can't do anything without the AUR and once you do go into the AUR, your entire system will break and literally nothing will work right, (or even without it, it might just break anyway, I've had many types of non-sense problems no one knew how to fix that only went away once I got off of Manjaro) the Manjaro mentality, alongside utter incompetence, outright violates Arch and as a result routinely will break your system and introduce bugs. (and that's before you consider the non-merged PRs getting merged into the Manjaro packages) As a result of all the suffering Manjaro put me through I actively hate it as a distro.
63
I had a stroke reading the source and logs being in that abomination style.
55
I can bet you if I go to a government building, advertise myself as a legit printer, I could absolutely exploit this to get sensitive information, this is a case where there is no possible way to distinguish a legit printer from a malicious fake printer and all it needs is one person to execute the thing on the network and I will have capacity to pwn the network.
36
More like this aged like debian
26
That's cope, Rust fanbois are some of the worst types of community for a programming language I've ever seen, they go around trying to spread the gospel of the crab and as a developer it is annoying and I despise them purely for their insistence that everything must be Rust. C elitists don't even compare to the vitriol I've dealt with just telling the Rust guys to leave us alone.
26
My issue with a lot of the pronoun weirdos is more that they cause fusses like this, they're a lot like vegans, belligerent and obsessed over it, can't shutup about it, and you have to walk on eggshells just to deal with them, everything sets them off and you can't have any fun around them because they'll blow up like they have bipolar. (and I have family with that illness, the comparison is fairly apt) I'm not surprised that a random joke blew up into "hyprland is toxic" type of crap where the pronoun folks try to excise vaxry for something innocuous, I have an even more flippant disregard for it because of religious convictions and I already have a joke on my discord profile where the pronouns thing is that says "are biologically determined" thus when you highlight my "pronouns" it says "pronouns are biologically determined", I've gotten quasi-banned from FOSS project communities for things like that, but I don't care, I still use the software despite that. And no I did not harass anyone, (I never even brought it up there) I was told by leadership in these cases that my profile "may trigger" someone and they told me to change it or leave which I did the latter amicably, hence why I say "quasi-banned" and not actually banned.
25
@aricrudd6579 This is what we call a strawman and ad hominem fallacy. Also nothing Christoph said had anything to do with ideology, sounds more like you've never maintained any piece of software in your life.
20
@mattelder1971 The OSI is a product of pre-existing open source software and was written as a formal definition of what open source was, contributed to by the exact people that were writing said software at the time, a formal definition coming to exist after its use does not violate the formal definition being well defined. Your claim is fallacious.
19
@Nina-cd2eh But Rust demands semantic knowledge, it gets pretty useless without that, (not really unique to Rust, but it is the most aggressive language I know on that) and the burden of that semantic knowledge is on the C code which the Rust devs either have to refactor or ignore, the latter of which means they have no advantage to that code. (or worse, it makes false promises and then the Rust code is more broken then the C code was) In which case how exactly is Rust advantageous for that case?
18
Half of the problem with XZ was the distros needlessly externally and silently patching a package just to get a feature they should've been requesting be added as a damn feature, if they had done things through the official upstream XZ wouldn't have been able to activate. The other half of the issue is that XZ was integrating binary blobs into the codebase via the test suite instead of compiling from source and relying purely on source available files. (aside from the lacking maintenance oversight) So long as a package wasn't being compiled with binary blobs that could integrate secret behavior, the XZ problem simply does not exist. Any further security complaints are generally pretty dumb because after those issues you can't distinguish legitimate code from hidden malicious code, they'll look the basically the same, best you get to deal with that is code review. (like how do you distinguish a hidden backdoor from a standard buffer overflow at that point? You can't)
18
I'm rather happy Hectors gone, he's been the source of so much strife and has been a royal pain in the ass for a while, not to mention he's a toxic developer who wants to ban everyone he disagrees with which includes a lot of people. And I rather despise the R4L project because it really is a fad language, it lacks basic things that all system languages should have and do, (especially for a kernel) the Rust language developers act like children and much of the Rust community worships the language developers like their some kind of "memory safe" gods, any criticism in my experience turns into some personal attack on a religion and no one ever says "fair point" like they'll do when someone criticizes C or C++.
17
Because Rust fanbois are the worst type of programming language community, when you insist everyone redo everything in your cult language from scratch and people simply ask you to please stop and you turn into an angry nutjob over it, you're gonna piss off a lot of people, I hate Rust purely for its community alone.
14
@ps5hasnogames55 "who cares about optics?" Anyone who wants the death of Windows or Apple, which includes Linus Torvalds. "linux doesn't have to serve anyone else" It serves those who use and build it for one. This is a foolish statement. "and especially not proprietary malware like eac" That's your perspective, its not our job to define how others should use the tools, we merely present the tools. Linus agrees, if you break something in userspace, you are the problem, not the userspace. "there's a reason linux kernel has so many bugs and is so bloated - the religion of "don't break userspace!" has created so much technical debt." Then why was Windows 7 considered the epitome of the best Operating Systems that Linux distros are still trying to emulate to this day? Your philosophy does not substantiate anything but a minority opinion that Linus does not agree with. And breaking backwards compatibility has never made Linux less buggy, most of the time it caused bugs. Desktop users don't need to care about bloat for such insignificant things and if you really need it, leave it as an option to remove the bloat, but don't remove it because of your unsubstantiated claims of "less buggy" despite being well more buggy still then Windows and Apple. The fact that both of them were usable for nearly three decades without complaint most of the time and that Linux in only trying to emulate aspects of them that it started to gain traction only demonstrates how worthless your claims are.
14
@MiukuMac Bytecode isn't the problem, its not storing the bytecode into memory that's the problem, this type of crap isn't a problem for things like Javascript and CSS (technically CSS doesn't use a bytecode, but structurally its not too dissimilar) as examples because they don't store it on disk, they keep it in memory no matter how long they wait on execution, the slight memory cost is completely irrelevant compared to the blocking that storing the bytecode would cause.
13
Still waiting for xfce wayland support, that honestly the only big thing keeping me on X, though I would really love if the streaming issues on wayland would be fixed before then.
13
When I saw this, I nearly flipped out laughing at the claim.
13
@Zhafêu I still don't get how you can have heap memory safety, which is the majority of the concern, when you can't even panic in the kernel, wouldn't that mean that Rust is no better then at least 20 other languages include C++ for this use case? The whole point of heap memory protections in Rust is that it does panic but if you can't do that, Rust isn't the first language to be able to report errors on memory issues. (although if that's a runtime check that also has a performance cost) And it isn't the only one that protects memory at compile time otherwise.
13
I don't see how Meta could collect any information from you that you don't already publicly give on a Fediverse account that isn't Threads, like from a technical perspective I don't see how this can even be considered a reasonable concern, I don't see why care about privacy here, if you care about privacy, just connect to the Fediverse without Threads, don't give information you don't want publicly known, sounds pretty simply, there's almost nothing to really get from say Mastodon that isn't already publicly accessible. Also its not like Threads is blocking the Fediverse from having NSFW on it, even then mainstream adoption will result in a lot more bigger Fediverse instances being less NSFW, but that doesn't prevent you from having access to them.
13
Do kinda wish we had the year as a major version, since I like knowing how out of date I am, but I guess its not that big a deal since generally a kernel shouldn't break backwards compatibility, so semver becomes a little pointless. Though there are cases where things are dropped and it would be at least nice to have that on a clear "major" change so I can be like "oh this is gone now" in case it would brick my system. (unlikely for me since my system is not even remotely niche nor old, but still, I think there are definitely tinkerers and devs that would appreciate it) Perhaps it be better to have dropped things on a yearly basis if you did that yearly number versioning, if I do anything big that I'd probably adopt that if semver doesn't make sense.
12
I intend to keep costing em as much money as possible for as long as possible and then leave.
11
IDK why anyone is defending RH in this thread, like the problem has nothing to do with the fact that the fix could cause more problems or reduce stability, its the fact that a contributor was given absolutely no information on fixing a bug "properly" from RH and was instead just told "we won't consider this", if the reason has to do with QA and regression testing, then just say that, foremost really should be asking the community to help with testing because they most certainly would, but even further not giving basic documentation on why the fix can't be accepted and the methodology to get it accepted, that's literally all you need, if someone sees a fix that has issues and says nothing but "I'm not merging this" what the hell do you think is gonna happen? How are contributors supposed to respond? And how does this demonstrate being more secure? Its not like none of the other distros don't also carry QA and regression testing, to say RHEL is unique here is just an outright lie, this response is just simply not okay, it wouldn't be okay to internal teams, its not okay either for external contributors, if you can't say it to a rookie on the production team, you can't just say it to a contributor.
11
@robnobert Fedora having a record of doing things before its stable seems like it make more sense to align itself with KDE, its Wayland support makes a lot more sense.
11
That doesn't require Threads, they can already do that without it, its social media, if you don't want something publicly accessible, don't give the social media that information, pretty simply.
10
@jonnyso1 But most concerns are in dynamic allocations, which Rust doesn't fix without panics. Semantic info is only useful if its kept up to date which fails if any internals of the C functions changes, it will create false promises to Rust which will break it. I don't see where Rust actually helps at the kernel level if it can't do the things that would make it memory safe. (unless it were allowed to crash, then sure, but most exploits are at dynamic memory which requires runtime checks that normally would panic in Rust)
10
I like the lack of professional behavior, its not like this breaks usability or accessibility of the web page and its not making anything impossible to read, and 1s intervals aren't all that much of a concern, I think its funny because we got people who are enjoying themselves at least over people who demand conformity, which is kinda the whole point of Arch. Not entirely certainly on other things people might be mad at the Arch admins for but I find this hilarious and love watching stupid Arch folks get mad because a lot of them are stupid.
10
I honestly don't see how you could trigger a DDOS, most especially not a reliable DDOS at that, it would require so much coordination with a multitude of curl users anyway and you could just as well trigger the same exact problem by simply calling curl, and the only case I can see it being a vulnerability is if you openly give access to the retry options, and even then its not going to keep making an immediate attempt. How could that possibly cause a DDOS? I guess if the server is really crap but that would be a problem regardless of an invalid option value.
10
@dustycarrier4413 The whole definition and term "open source" came from the FOSS philosophy, its not a monopoly, its an already objectively defined term.
9
Ew snaps, honestly there is very little reason to use a snap app when you have a package manager.
9
This is the reason I'm advocating that if you really need to build an app that's easy to cross-platform and develop on with a nice readable and performant language and great UI system that you can actually edit without opening a text file, use Godot, you can even strip it down, there is no need to JIT it, it still works decently as a web app, but most especially it runs as a native app. And if you really need another language or C++, you can just use one of the native bindings that doesn't require recompiling the whole engine. (and even if you're willing to do that, you can shrink it down to a 20-30 meg binary on Linux if all you want is core functionality)
9
The FSF would've won the war against proprietary code by now if they'd just been reasonable and approach people in an attempt to give them full choice and work as best as is reasonably possible to eliminate proprietary code. They honestly shoot FOSS in the foot the most out of any members of it.
9
Now that's a strawman if I've ever seen one.
9
The issue crops up more visibly on lower end systems and with lower refresh rates.
8
@anon_y_mousse Community is also quite toxic and fanatic, we all understand the flaws of C, Rust folks in my experience only ever get angry and throw tantrums if you point any out to them.
8
@terrydaktyllus1320 "Just for the record, I can take an entirely "unbiased" attitude to systemd because I have used Gentoo Linux at home since 2003 where I have never had to deploy systemd but, at the same time, I have been in a job working on Red Hat servers for 20 years now and I, of course, have to know how to drive systemd as part of that job." You can't take an unbiased attitude with anything though because that's literally, logically, and physically impossible to do. Facts are inherently biased by nature, to consider yourself unbiased in any manner is by nature a manipulative and deceptive statement no matter how you slice it, anyone who says such things should be immediately distrusted. Also you prove your bias by using experience and anecdotes over specific arguments. Secondly this is complete nonsense, you have a job, in a job you choose to take, you don't get a choice on how to perform your job, you do what you are required of you, you don't get to violate the desires of your boss else you can't have a job, if you don't like that then you shouldn't have chosen the job and can quit said job, you always have a choice, but saying it like that is just try to hide it claiming "my job" as if you didn't chose your job foremost. You were never compelled to do that work, no job is ever forced upon, you have to accept it first. "I started using Linux back in 1996 and it has been my main OS since 2003 but if you asked me to remove systemd from Red Hat, I wouldn't even know where to start. It is core to the functionality of Red Hat and a huge number of other applications depend on it." 95% of those apps are FOSS already, some of them have non-systemd forks anyway, a lot of the time if people actually care the work was already done, in the few other cases its not especially hard for any specific app. Also what do you expect from Red Hat? Its their backend startup system, do you expect them to write everything from scratch when they have an easy to use system right there? Why should they write for anything else when it doesn't gain them anything? "and I would suggest you'll be out of luck there if you asked that of probably all distro developers." Haven't had a problem of this on Arch, I suppose with Debian and Debian-based distros it can be dumb, but that's because they're stupid distros anyway. "but that choice is restricted to what distros are available and how those distros have been built." Not really, choice has nothing to do with availability, this is a conflation of two distinct concepts, its not desirable not interesting and thus has not been done, people don't care enough and by the prospect of market forces nothing has been done. The only distro I can even think of where this is a massive problem is Debian and Fedora, which granted with Debian takes up most of the common users but its not like you don't have a choice of the distro in the first place, and you can distro hop regardless, and with most of the other distros besides them you do still get that choice. "Nothing stops you forking Fedora and rebuilding it to be systemd-less, but that's actually building a new distro, and that's beyond most people." Because its pointless, why would you chose Fedora in the first place if you hate systemd, that's quite stupid, how about instead of doing that just chose one of the distro/distro variants that don't freaking ship with systemd? There's plenty of those, Arch is filled with em, I don't see how this is a problem, it sounds more like making up an issue. And most people don't care anyhow, that's the reason the common use distros are systemd ones anyway. "Please try to be more objective in your thinking in future - so many people only look at the world from their perspective only, in your case "I like systemd, it works for me so everyone else should like it" and then try and "backwards engineer" rationales around such subjective opinion - and then end up being completely wrong." Given you kind of just used a fallacy here, that was a dumb response, you literally did that. Also this sounds kind of like a strawman. I mean you completely violated the fact that you've always had a choice, you're living proof, but yet you then also try to claim that your choice of distro isn't a goddamn choice, how does that make any logical sense? You just made a claim that you fundamentally don't exist.
8
"No major company with clear staying power is producing and supporting a desktop Linux system" So does this exclude Redhat, Canonical, or Pop_Os? The latter two of which has in fact shipped personal computing desktops in stores with Linux installed. Not to mention Canonical has also tried their hand at the mobile market at least once. And what about Framework? They have a lot of out of the box Linux support.
8
Legit makes more sense then rust, not to mention its easier for C devs to maintain.
8
@MiukuMac Considerably slower in what way? In a noticeable way? Probably not, if it really mattered, then they'd develop a JIT or AOT compiler, but bytecode can be made fast enough without it if you're not doing anything super complex, (like C++ or Rust level complex) and if you have type information, you can optimize for a lot of performance, also a DSL designed for a specific purpose can make a lot of presumptions that remove performance costs, the small cost of performance otherwise isn't a big deal when the margin isn't noticeable and won't stress out the system, even with a DE you have performance budget to waste a bit, you don't need hyper-optimized performance, you need to prove its a problem with profiling first. A RAM cached bytecode absolutely won't show up in a profiler. (and I'm saying this as someone who has written a bit of language parsers and bytecode stuff before) Often times easy maintenance is superior to having an obsession over performance, performance only matters when you can notice it. The problem of modern systems is that a lot of people ignore it even when it is noticeable, you could easily profile code to see a problem, I agree will addressing those issues, but I'm willing to bet you QML itself would never be the problem here.
7
2FA has always felt like a half-assed attempt to reach the "I lost my crypto-wallet" problem for me, least as of late, its kinda frustrating that I need to have a device or I need to know the next device I'm gonna use for the 2FA, IDK I don't really think its the responsibility of the host to provide security, (that violates their convenience without a choice) its up to each individual to decide the risks for themselves. I just don't believe in collective nor centralized solutions, too bad nobody will get over them. And I'm saying this as an active contributor to multiple projects on github and so have to use 2FA, I use a browser addon for my 2FA, honestly I feel there's gotta be a better solution.
7
@jonnyso1 That's not actually true though, safety isn't the issue for that point, its semantics, there is nothing in the standard library that would violate those assumptions because the the unsafe behavior below Rust is preserved through the legacy of the C standard library which is always backwards compatible, and if those semantics were to change it will break Rust. I don't expect the Rust standard library to either change semantics unless it wants to break all preexisting code, the C and C++ standard library is full of deprecations they can't get rid of for a reason, unless Rust does that it would fail to be a usable systems language at all. And that requires nearly as many Rust contributors just doing that as C ones, every change needs to be managed by both a Rust and C developer then. (and if that fails, Rust will break) Maintenance to that level is an unmanageable problem without a tool that forces it, which the kernel devs cannot use. (and I speak that from experience, even on a small level maintaining that is an impossible and often stupid task)
7
She still seems to rave about it like a fanatic which concerns me for if she'll ever actually consider the flaws if you were to argue with her on it, if that's the case, I would then disregard her opinion to the same regard as everyone else. I'm more angry at Rust fanaticism then I ever could be at the language itself, for which I personally despise but have not intended opposition towards. But its for that fanaticism that I don't want Rust anywhere near Linux now.
7
This is such a confusing exploit, so explicit merge keywords aren't implemented but implicit PR merging is? That's just dumb.
6
Its so sad that Richard Stallman died of ligma. Who the hell is Richard Stallman? Ligma Balls.
6
Its a problem with OpenGL because the extensions are basically hardware limited, with Wayland extensions aren't really a problem since any application can have its necessary extensions implemented and installed regardless of hardware and firmware allowing segregated functionality implementations that don't waste anything for those who don't want it, and with a package manager that becomes exceedingly trivial. (and if we rely on a package manager to install things, unless its an optional dependency, you don't even need to perform dependency checks unlike in OpenGL where you more or less had no choice) It also enables competition between the extensions that do similar things meaning a de facto standard will rise to top by being so much better then its alternatives. Another benefit of this is that an agreed upon standard for any specific thing could also devise communication layers so that nothing in the windowing system will step on anything else's toes. If done well, it can be a brilliant cross-section between performance, security, and functionality, however it does start to become harder to manage if you hate package managers, but honestly pretty much all distros are a massive nightmare without them anyway.
6
I think upstream and downstream package both server necessary purposes, it really depends on the specific application. (course if you're dependency tree is shaky and unstable, this demonstrates the perfect case when not sticking to upstream is a nightmare)
6
Part of the problem with this is that the specification and concept of Wayland wasn't finished nearly enough before non-demonstrative implementations were implemented. As it stands right now there really should only be one wayland implementation that's literally nothing but the bare basics of wayland's spec for which only really exists to compare functionality, capability, and usability against xorg. But since we have multiple "commercial" implementations its muddying the water and dirtying expectations for wayland. Doesn't help that the wayland designers are so autistic about security that they won't consider someone using the system in a way that they disagree with much like the gnome and KDE devs did/do. I take massive issue with this outlook because that's not up for them to decide, if we want higher security, you can build that, but leave us the option to make it easier or figure out a manner where we can both have our cake and eat it too. If you don't provide either you are ensuring nobody will want to use your mess of a philosophy disguised as a platform improvement. And in the least of things they should give us something that doesn't break everything when it doesn't need to, most functionality that wayland doesn't support isn't because it can't do it in a reasonable way, it really feels more like snobbery for which it does that.
6
@tellsackett4572 I would suggest you also learn Zig and C3. (yes they're alpha languages, but honestly I see both as being able to go further since they maintain simplicity and safety)
5
As usually all human rules tend to have many exceptions given enough time, that's why rulings need a judge who is willing to take the individual cases under a case by case basis and determine instead if it needs to violate the rules or not.
5
I think this could be exceedingly useful in two different formats, a terminal format with more GUI-based mouse interactions and another where its practically piping a terminal behavior into a UI, the outline is wrong and poor in so much UX, this guy doesn't really get UX design at all, but it could be exceedingly useful especially if we have something like "favorited commands" where you might just have to hit a keybind (or click the button) and it queues command, sequence of commands, and/or arguments alongside that to run. We already have plenty of decent visual scripting "languages" and handling a terminal is for the most part dumber than that.
5
"Everything is chrome in the future."
5
@tinrab I have numerous criticisms of Rust as a language and infrastructure that absolutely makes it a failure of a language, like for example the lack of ABI stability and the inability to support shared linkage, in fact you can't distribute Rust programs as linkable libraries at all because of that ABI stability problem. If you can't see any of that as a problem then you're the cultist, as a C/C++ developer these are way too many reasons I can't use Rust at all, so to tout it as superior is a complete joke. I don't even have a problem with some of its ideas, its implementation however sucks. (and as someone with a deep fascination in software language development, I know a thing or two about developing languages, that's another reason I know the language sucks)
5
@AdroSlice Agreed, I hate CoCs entirely, but its no excuse to go full schizophrenic, even if members of the dev pool were into queer ideology, he should've been respectful and polite about it, if he had said "I don't feel I can trust the former developers with permissions over the project anymore, I however have nothing against them still contributing work" like any reasonable FOSS project should do.
5
@CptJistuce Pretty much, we should call it Bootleg-Unix/GNU.
5
Problem is that given the money involved in the io TLD its extremely likely that they'll both want it and they'll come up with no agreement on who should continue to own it. (it would be hilariously ironic if the TLD terminates over that)
5
C++ is amazing, its C++ developers that are crap, and with C++20 finalized implementations, we'll be getting modules, most common compilers support most of modules anyway, and with modules we get to fully combine declaration files and definition files, precompiled functionality without PCH crap, and it entirely removes global pollution from includes and macros.
5
@poly9306 "Have you ever talked with any of them?" I've seen their responses to the exact issues that people needed to make workarounds for or the ones for which they won't implement at all and multiple times they said they're extremely against it and their responses left no room to being convinced claiming "security" usually without alternative. This has happened enough times that its pretty clear that how their philosophy is being interpreted is the problem. "You call them autistic and ignorant" I didn't call them ignorant though and I don't believe they are. I called them autistic because they are being excessively special over how they interpret their philosophy to the point of uselessness. We're not building software to satisfy our egos but how they approach issues that's what it really appears to be. "but you don't even know who they are you don't know how they act or treat potential use cases." They've made enough public statements that I feel confident saying what I have, if you don't like it you can see what they said on these issues but I'm not going to placate you if you're gonna act like a fanboy who assumes what I've said when I haven't. If you're gonna have a preconceived notion of me over these things I don't care about changing your mind but you don't get to attack me with an appeal to accomplishment and act like that's alright. "You also say "it's not for them to decide" actually yes it is" If you're building software and software specifications with the expressed purpose of deciding how people use the software then that's pretty immoral and dumb. If I build a game, produce it so anyone can play it, and someone mods it for their own enjoyment that doesn't harm anyone else's experience or perhaps even enriches another one's only, if I get mad and tell him to stop because he's using the software wrong, who is really in the right there? If I fork a FOSS window manager like gnome and spend a long period of time modifying it to something I'd like and otherwise keep it under the same license and the original developers get mad, am I really in the wrong? So I don't have a right to do what I wish with my own computer and that which I put on it? Cause that was my entire point there, they put so much effort into snubbing that behavior that it makes it impossible for anyone to have a general system with said behavior, its entirely their fault that we don't have a wayland standard for things like general video capture and global hotkeys at all. They have no excuse for that, it can easily be done in a secure way in some manner and those are essential features for our systems. "it is for people that take part in the discussions and care for the project and spend their time trying to help, not some random comments on the internet, of people that don't try to help and just complain." I've seen the discussions they've had and I've been dissuaded from even considering it. I have no regard for someone who will flame me like a fanboy because he doesn't understand their responses to these issues are a problem. Had they not so quickly shut those discussions down and given actually decent reasoning for what they say then I would've been keen to look kindly on them but since they don't operate rationally I since can only look at them under a negative disposition. Call it complaining all you want, I'm just stating facts and using reason. Don't shoot the messenger. "You don't have to be super technical to help" No but I have nothing to add given their responses. And besides that I could be super technical anyway, I'm a pretty experienced and knowledgeable software engineer so I know how to. "you just have to have a will to do so," Perhaps I would have if not for the wayland designers. "if you don't have it, at least don't offend people that have it" If you're offended by it, that suggests one of two things, either I hit way too close to home and you couldn't take it or you're assuming that it was some kind of attack when it wasn't. Offense over this is not capable with a reasonable people, I have said nothing worthy of offense here. If you want to do stuff with it that's your prerogative but don't force your ideology down my throat, I have a right to be mad for wayland failing to be what they touted it to be. It is not a functional replacement design for xorg. You don't get to tell me what I can and can't do and neither do you have a right to tell me I'm wrong by using fallacious arguments like that. I don't have to talk to them, I don't have to be involved, I merely need to see what they've said and come to my own conclusions about who and what they are. That's what I'm speaking from, I don't need to rationalize it further. "complain about the end product not about people that made it." The people are responsible for the end product, if their philosophy fails to produce a suitable end product, its not the products fault, why should I blame the product for something that's clearly their fault? This logic makes no sense, are products capable to make themselves out of nowhere? If they ignore problems calling it a feature and won't listen to anybody who has a rational issue with that response then I have a right to get mad over that. That's gonna make the end product crap and its because they're acting foolish and thinking foolish things. Just because its a FOSS project does neither mean the contributors and owners aren't responsible for it being bad, that's just a bad argument. I'd go as far as to call it a deflection argument which is fallacious.
5
Truth be told I find Rust more of a gimmick with a religious fanbase, I have been continuously assaulted and insulted personally by making criticisms regarding the Rust language and build system in general, I have been accused of knowing nothing in regards to languages or even the Rust devs reasons for what they've done, despite both accusations being false, without an address of anything I've ever said on the subject. I can't help but see Rust developers and those fanatic about Rust as anything but children who can't regulate their own behaviors and speech for even a modicum amount to act mature, they speak of Rust as this prolific language to come basically because its not C, for which it is not unique for and there are plenty of languages that share much of its feature set and use, they just aren't as trendy. With all this I honestly now hate Rust and its community and would prefer to keep them out of kernel development because even if Rust has its advantages over C, there are too many people who use it that are either children by mind and act or who are in fact entirely children who need to learn to in the least grow a thick skin. A good language should foremost have a community of mature and decent people that don't get mad because some criticize their religion. If just criticism of Rust is enough to create fanatic angry opposition with rude comments, ad homnem attacks, and other irrational deflections and fallacies then I can't help but despise it. We all know the flaws of C and C++, we all accept them, we're mature and accept that those languages are not flawless as though its some perfect religion, but with Rust I have experienced many times people who are driven insane with an incapacity to see its flaws and who will shut you down and attack you if you threaten this view. I oppose Rust specifically because these are the exact type of people I don't want touching anything in Linux, I don't want people who think they know things only for them to disregard anything that disagrees with them so their confirmation bias is in fact confirmed, all they'll do is create chaos and cause problems. I don't even have a problem with most of the goals of Rust, I mostly just hate how it accomplishes it, I have explained this multiple times to deaf ears and every time I get into the discussion, it makes me frustrated because Rust folks tend to think if you're not with them then you're against them even if you say that you're fine with the language otherwise. I don't like the language but I would never say for it not to exist, I hate that literally every single trendy C-based language of late does the same Rust, I don't like mimic languages and find the mentality with syntax frustrating, but if it wasn't for the community, I would never care about Rust as a syntax or build system, I would simply never touch it, but now I am vehemently opposed to letting them any advantage even just for moral reason. Why does this need to be made into a moral issue? I don't think the mindset of a child should have a hand on kernel development.
5
Honestly, the only thing about Rust that pisses me off is the useless divergences from C for no reason, I'd like it as a C alternative if not for its crappy syntax problems that I have with it, I will always hate postfix type specification and separation between type specifiers and variable declarations, its useless verbosity, the type is already significant to the variable and is necessarily required information, its actually more important then the variable name and just like all the other languages that get mad at C and ALGOL styled languages (for whatever reason) it just tries to make type specifiers look optional when they most certainly aren't. And the whole "type specification is inferred" is one stupid and useless, yes you can support that but why separate it from the type specification? It is by all convention and function just a type, the type is just determined at compile time, why separate them. If you do it how C++ does it there is absolutely no need to separate the type specifier and type inference functionality, not to mention it reduces the necessary characters to describe the code as the extra characters are entirely pointless to writer, reader, and parser and serve no necessary purpose. I don't mind Rust's type names, I don't know if I like them being so short as I think it bloats global environment with non-descriptive shorthands, but I can understand how its better then double, long, long long, and int128_t. (tbf to fix int128_t, just remove the _t and make it part of the language spec)
4
@auslegungssache I agree, I have a religious disagreement with the whole trans thing and its why I stand against the pronoun thing, I explicitly tell people, if they drive up a fuss, that my convictions are not in service to man nor to make him feel comfy, but I'll be respectful and kind to you as long as you don't start attacking me, and if they don't want to be offended by what I say don't bring up the topic to me and we'll live completely fine, I've met a few of them on discord, the few that drive up a fuss about it are ones we constantly rag on, but those who don't are just like everyone else and nobody cares either way.
4
Name pronunciation strictness in my opinion only generally matters if the subject knows and understands the language (which becomes more irrelevant anyway when we get into dialects) well enough to speak it confidently and fluently and has regular experience dealing with regular speakers of the language. In that specific case, you can make the argument that what they say for that language is correct. (I still wouldn't argue with someone over it as long as I can understand what you mean I don't give a damn and anyone who does imo is being stupid, language is for comprehensible communication and nothing else) But in the case that there is none of this understanding it is up to the native speakers to define how pronunciation should be designated without argument.
4
Nobody: Everyone involved with the FSF: *absolute schizo talks*
4
@BrodieRobertson Some of us mispronounce them to intentionally piss em off, somebody gotta tell folks to stop trying to reinvent English, they're just shooting themselves in the foot.
4
@MikePerreman It is for ubuntu though, and that's used just as much in enterprise and is the most popular desktop linux distro. And all it takes is one person to pwn the network.
4
I remember dealing with this for Godot which was 2 weeks out of date for one of the 4.1 patch releases. When you have teams relying on you for a version update, waiting for the arch repo packages to help you can be a nightmare when you need a bug fixed asap, and since Godot 4 became the mainstream version it got nuked off the AUR despite the AUR repo only ever being a day or two out of date. I said screw it and decided to just duplicate the old AUR package, changed the version, and retrieved it from the github release directly assets, few days after the Godot package got updated, but now I have a local package that I use to force the Godot package to be updated even if the arch repo stays out of date. Installing Godot is trivial since its just a single portable executable file you can download and its only 100 megs, but I wanted my package manager, desktop shortcuts, and path to have the correct version without hassle since I make use of them regularly. Was easier that way.
4
@axelanderson2030 I agree with that, I absolutely HATE intrusive anti-cheat and DRM, all forms (aside from VAC) of anti-cheat and DRM are total trash and grossly misrepresent the problem in order to solve it in the worst way for everyone because everyone involved is stupid and lazy about it, I was just clarifying that least in this case EAC is not really at fault.
4
Note Protonmail is still a US glowie honeypot.
4
@terrydaktyllus1320 "Fine, but I am just an Xorg user, I don't write apps. I thought software was supposed to be "user friendly", not necessarily "developer friendly"." That literally means nothing will be user friendly and you'll get less people capable to be developers or seek being developers, or they'll go into something less stupid otherwise. It means less accessibility all around, not just for devs. "Which toolkits and WMs?" All of em, literally everyone is using inefficient hacks. "namely to make programming easier by standardising the "look and feel" of the interface and providing the libraries that programmers need to code their apps around." GTK and QT don't share anything in common in regards to theme or interface and they actually are thematically disruptive, they exist because nobody wants to keep rewriting the damn window management and GUI construction, its not standardization, its about making clear consistent enough windows and GUIs, but both QT and GTK are still pretty trash, and being stuck with X11 which mostly outlives both of them only makes that worse. "You've decided you don't like Xorg because it's old" This is a stupid statement because it blatantly misunderstands software, you don't want old software, it doesn't get fixed when there's a problem, its got an ugly codebase that nobody can recall how it works well, and it will have a million pieces of useless dangling code nobody uses that opens the doors to day zero exploits nobody has publicly disclosed yet. X11 is full of crap like this and that's only the tip of the iceberg. That extra dangling crap also slows the system down, and extends compile times especially if its in an old language version that lacks more modern QoL (in other newer languages) features. There are a million more reasons I can be mad at old code that new code doesn't piss me off about, I hate Rust but even I'm not stupid enough to think its better then C99. "So you "pretend" you know a lot more about it than actually do and that it's all about "think of the developers!" Talk about being a jerk and a fool, you do realize every problem a developer faces the user will face twice as bad because its up to the developer, who may not even be aware of all the jank to account for that OR ELSE HE GETS BLAMED FOR SOMETHING HE HAS NO FAULT IN. That's what X11 does to the developer, causes fools like you to blame developers for things they shouldn't be responsible for because they didn't account for a old broken system like X11. "I started using Linux in 1996, Xfree86 as it was then, Xorg as it now, has done pretty much what I need a GUI environment to do" Broken earbuds still tend to work halfway, doesn't make them good, and being broken their half as good as they were. This is about as good a justification as saying "I should just use Netscape, the internet should still support the old forms so I can use it, otherwise everyone else is to blame, nobody should have to upgrade" when in reality its just you being dumb. There is no justification for this mindset other then complacency and familiarity, you fear change and thus blame any change and hold anyone seeking improvement with contempt when in reality its just you being lazy. "If and when Wayland gives me some wonderful new things that enhances my Linux experience, then I may take a look at it." It already does, the problem is it lacks some things you may be used to, some of which you should actually agree to get rid of specifically because its killing self-destructive. As for what is self-destructive specifically I can't say but you don't say receptive given what you just said. "Actually, I think with most of you "fashionistas", it's just about believing that you'll be able to play your modern games better" This is a retarded cope. Nobody thinks Wayland will do that anymore then X11 especially since X11 is the one everyone builds stuff for right now. "and my "engineer's answer" to that is just spend $10 on a Windows 10 OEM license and play your games on that." What the hell is wrong with you? Those are completely unrelated topic, its clear you don't have a cent of understanding on the subject if that's first off why you think people want Wayland and secondly if that's your solution. You do realize you just implied that Wayland is Windows 10, which is the most disgusting response to a non-Microsoft FOSS project I think you could say. You are a dumbass. "Me, I don't play crappy modern games" I play and mod modern games on Proton GE just fine, you are a literal boomer and you speak like some old ass hick in regards to your tech understanding, I have no idea what kind of fool would claim we want Wayland because "gaming" and "fashionable software", a lot of X11 functional games break on wine more then anything. "when WIndows 7 support ended" The fact you stuck with Win7 saying all this crap says it all. "If it ain't broke then don't fix it" If it ain't broke, I love to be lazy and stupid and never improve myself or anything I own. Surely nothing will ever break in the backend where I don't understand crap and claim to be all knowing. That's quite a waste. "The best engineer's solution to a problem is usually the cheapest and easiest one." This still suggests that any decision you just claimed of could potentially be wrong and you're just too lazy or much to incapable in thought to check.
4
@mmstick Maybe you should actually learn what the word "harassment" means first, I just want to be left alone, Rust is not this bastion of programming that Rust cultists claim it to be, it fails even basic things, as such it is incapable of replacing C or C++.
4
@tinrab Clang, GCC, and MSVC all have stable ABIs for each other on the same system. I can link against them, the only exception is MSVC doesn't like linking against certain options, and that's because it does its own special things that violates the standard. It does that a lot. GCC and Clang however are always ABI compatible (and the C standard does make ABI stability guarantees, seems you've never read the C standardd) and both are usually ABI compatible with MSVC in every common use case. Course you could also simply not use MSVC's compiler/linker and skip that potential problem entirely anyway. Rust cannot do shared linkage, this is an open issue that's known and they can't fix.
4
@Henrik0x7F Dynamic linkage is the basis for almost everything on Unix systems, and is essential to network infrastructure, both Linux and BSD rely on it so heavily for more then core systems. (all common Unix package managers rely on dynamic linkage) And that aside every major C++ compiler is ABI compatible, GCC and Clang have interoperable ABI (even with different build options, whether dynamically or statically linked) and MSVC can do so if you disable the non-standard debug behavior and structured exceptions. (and tbf the non-standard debug behavior is mostly a library problem which if you ran in Clang, is still ABI compatible)
4
@Henrik0x7F Then you don't work in open source software or network infrastructure, or in anything that has to deal with the LGPL, or anything that has to do with Unix. Dynamic linkage is also necessary for game development and projects like image manipulators and video editors. I am actively working on projects, both commercial and non-commercial, that literally cannot work without dynamic linkage.
4
It has nothing to do with "app exclusivity" because its all about maintaining two parallel incompatible versions of their libraries, sometimes wholly separated in the case of static libs, this is a massive waste that you need to spend money and developers maintaining and wastes twice as much time developing any singular feature in the optimal case. (and 90% of cases are sub-optimal so generally expect around 350% slowdown for any functionality or solution) Its not like GTK3 or GTK4 will be dead in the sense of being completely unusable, it won't be actively maintained but you could still use it, it just means GTK5 features not seen in GTK3 and GTK4 will be exclusive to Wayland which 90% of the time isn't gonna change anything, if someone needs to make a GTK app they can just use GTK4, its extremely unlikely they'll need GTK5 features and since GTK is FOSS anyway if someone wants to bring certain GTK5 features to GTK4's Xorg implementation then they can fork GTK4 and do it themselves. I don't see how this is a problem. Do you expect GTK to work on every Windowing System all the time? That expectation is insane, you're hefting work on people for something that has no value, any scrub or company who built their own window system would still be excluded from GTK, X10 is also not supported by the more modern versions because what would the point be? X11 has been around for 40 years, most people who use computers now, even on Linux, weren't alive or weren't capable of doing anything with a computer when X11 was released, so why would you expect anyone to use it?
4
Just gonna say, Rust fanbois and KDE opposition are themselves absolutely cults that won't say anything bad so long as it follows their precepts of their cult. Them having something positive to say does not mean they are actually saying anything valid. Gnome hatred makes sense but least from an experiential sense may be overblown.
4
@bigbay1159 Seems that I was so well reasoned that they deleted their comment, I however quoted most of what they said, least the bits that are relevant for the refutation I presented. Their entire thing was basically trying to argue that Linux should always be willing to break userspace because not doing so is exactly what makes a buggy mess and that's why Linux is so bad and buggy according to them, because of the "religion of bloat" or whatever that we adhere to, he blamed literally all bugginess of Linux on bloat.
4
Patents were designed expressively with patent trolls in mind, its just a government enforced monopoly, of course its going to be abused, that's by design.
4
@BrodieRobertson iirc a lot of the issue of addressing it has to do with the wayland philosophy as interpreted by those designing the spec, without either convincing them to violate those interpretations or creating an extended spec that everyone will default to over standard wayland, this problem is likely to persist for a long time. Personally I'm skeptical they'll actually pull it off, but I'm not in their head so who knows, it does make me more doomer for wayland though.
4
Ladybird vs. the world
4
Problem with JIT is not only does it eat a massive amount of memory, but it also takes forever to start up a new instance of a JIT'd interpreter and the JIT compiler. The only thing it solves is being super fast at the cost of resource usage and startup time, which works fine for cases where you start it once and leave it running with multiple references to a singular instance (I would still argue that's kinda stupid compared to a kind of AOT compilation unless you're performing runtime code generation for a static system, but regardless) but electron apps can't do this so its literally pointless.
4
@tablettablete186 I'm not sure kernel ABI is all that significant since Windows at least does a fairly decent job abstracting the kernel's binary interface to userspace and higher level programming interfaces already, so it breaking ABI only really matters in a small number of cases, probably most often low level things like drivers and such.
3
@Luxalpa "The way C++ does typing is wayyyy more verbose than Rusts." First off no, you're confusing type specification with type references, I'm not referring to type references, I'm referring to the type specifier. I've been quite clear with never referring to how types are defined in C++ so there is no reason to assume that I'm referring to that. And that aside with type inference that becomes irrelevant, and even without it that doesn't apply if you exclude namespaces in C++, and the only reason for that with namespaces specifically is because C++ must globally define namespaces in the global scope to use them (which means if you do say using std; then you just introduce the whole std namespace to the global scope that references that file) unlike say in C# where namespace usage has itself segregated into a file scope, (this will be mostly fixed though less usable then C# with C++ modules) foremost this issue was solved by C# entirely and now in C# they're also solving the lack of global typedef behavior. Unfortunately with C# everything is a class still. "You can find the reasons for all the syntactical decisions on their github (or other places) if you really care about" I know and find them all as fundamentally bad excuses for parsing the language as they do. "but it does not have any crappy syntax-problems" I find its syntax as with many of the C alternatives revolting and stupid, I don't see reason to diverge from ALGOL on this and none of the excuses given have shone a justification that I can accept, I can understand with something like Typescript because you're introducing a subset of Javascript there and thus want to make it backwards compatible with said language which doesn't have a declarative type system, but Rust has no excuse as far as I'm concerned because it is statically typed and the type is some of the most important information to the function of the program, specifically in regards to variables. "when in fact there's very strong reasons that you just don't understand because you couldn't be bothered to look it up." Or perhaps I know the reasons, for which I do, I find them trite and worthless, I hate Rust and many languages like it partly because I hate its syntax, but also for its zealous community, I don't appreciate being told I must be wrong because I don't understand it, you make an awful lot of assumptions about me and my character that is just plain rude and insulting and it speaks more volumes about representing the Rust community then anything, I didn't insult you and a language is not your religion so why should you feel assaulted when I find what is done in it stupid such a big deal to get up in arms and attack my character about? I didn't even outright insult the language devs let alone the community, I only insulted the language for making decisions I despise because I find no value in the verbosity of its design nor do I see how the justifications as excuses worth considering. No this type of response is the exact type of behavior that makes me further infuriated with Rust more then the language and its one of the other reasons I hate Rust, even more then its syntax alone.
3
@tellsackett4572 Yeah, I actually joined discord after watching one of his streams, the features I've seen has honestly made me believe it could be the true replacement to C when it gets out of alpha, especially since it can trivially maintain C ABI compatibility.
3
@breadpirateroberts4946 "not wanting to use the repo package due to being too old for your use case" Too old? This is literally only a problem on Ubuntu, almost every other debian-based distro doesn't have that problem, (and in arch-based problems its actually kinda difficult to find one that could) and only if you don't opt in to the experimental packages that aren't snaps. "not wanting to fuck around with PPAs which are insecure and can break your system" Any package can break your system if you're not careful, even officially supported ones, the Pop OS brick case wasn't the first official on a debian distro and it won't be the last. Simply put you are always putting your trust and hands into someone else when it comes to software, so long as you don't just randomly install things however and actually take like 15 seconds to investigate packages you are unsure of that problem does not crop up in experience. I use the AUR constantly, about 95% of my rig is currently AUR packages which are highly comparable to PPAs, (granted they are still different mostly with centralized distribution and AURs allow more fine control over the package, but that doesn't really increase the chance of breaking in my experience, it is a problem with the debian though) only a handful of them are official in any respect, and yet my system has never been busted by an update nor an installed package and I've been daily driving this thing for about 5 years or so. The only reason I can think of that you'd use a snap is specifically because you can't find the original dependencies any other way or you're using an old version that isn't available anymore.
3
Damn, kinda looks like wokeness is infecting the Rust Foundation, IDK if it is, but holy crap is the foundation overstepping its bounds in the outright malicious with this, who the hell demands gun prohibitions when they don't even own the event, let alone the damn building of the event? Not to mention that trying to do that in half of the US is not only a violation of American law, but you will be prosecuted for it and will lose, so they are literally encouraging people to break the law just to follow this policy which isn't even legally enforceable. Also health mandates can also be a violation of state laws so again they're stepping into the bounds of encouraging people to break the law. And then what's that about injecting the alphabet specials, black lives matter, and such? How about the Rust Foundation not actively partake in supporting only one side of the political isle at minimum, what about libertarianism or straight pride? Or even better would be if they leave fair use alone as that crap was already covered under it. I already despised rust as a language and disliked their community, but the foundation just gave me a very good reason to desire the death of the rust language. I don't think I ever wanted to kill a programming language before but this just gave me a lot of reasons. I never thought about starting a crusade against a language and that's made it interesting. And no amount of feedback will change my opinion on this now, the fact is they put this crap out, they thought this was acceptable, every member complicit in putting this out should be blacklisted from it, and if not, then the foundation and its associates need to be destroyed as far as I'm concerned.
3
Ew Rust, its not Javascript or Python disgusting, but its still disgusting.
3
@BrodieRobertson I despise a lot of the syntax, a lot of it is unnecessarily verbose without addressing verbosity concerns in C and C++ at all, like I hate the separation of type declarations and type specifiers that comes with postfix type specifiers (the whole let a : i32 = 1 instead of something like i32 a = 1) for I find it too verbose for the amount of necessary information, (it provides more information in all cases then needed, in C++ if we need type inference auto works great, but in many cases of moderately sized project you may not want or can't use type inference in which case its a waste for the required syntax) and I also despise the requirement of non-build aspects of the build process in order to use the build system, it lacks any modularity, most especially the fact I need to use their package manager to manage a build, I hate it in Node and Python (and do get annoyed with nuget requirement for dotnet now too, each of them have broken my builds or crashed on me because of the unnecessary complexity required to build) and I feel no better with such in Rust, I prefer a build system that where the only reliance strictly required is the simplest it can be and everything else is my own choice and needs. I don't mind them providing such things, (and even making it easy to use them, though I wish for a standard manner for a build system to be integrated so I can pick which one according to my needs) but they are required in order to use the whole of the build system and that irks me to no end.
3
For as long as Red Hat, Linux Mint, and Gnome keep calling US Republicans the no-no germans, Linux won't pickup steam either way.
3
I mock it because the slide confuses requirements with complexity reduction, which have nothing to do with each other. You want a simple kernel, something near impossible with Linux, maybe a "Linux lite" kernel could be made for this purpose, or some Linux-like safety-critical kernel, but that needs to be made and is neither here nor there, the problem is complexity but the slide claims the problem is requirements, but having clear requirements would never fix the actual problem and its stupid to think that it could.
3
@shivanandvp "I mean, if you lived in the 15th Century and got transported to 2022" There are at least 4 other languages that handle Rust's capability nearly the same or similar to Rust, all being lower level compiled languages with some type of OOP support meant to replace and/or work overtop of C. Even C itself has a subset that does this to some extent. These people are just ignorant and follow trends instead of actually work. And none of them before thought to devise a language to do this? You can't tell me none of them know how to writer a parser or manage a language? Also this isn't the first time we've seen a C alternative do this stuff, its the first time it was so popular though, besides Rust folks majorly couldn't have been working during the 70s or 80s and Rust is not nearly as innovative in its field as you're erroneously claiming. It does cool things (if not for all the other things it does wrong maybe I'd feel more to praise it) but a decade of difference is most certainly not the same as 5 centuries of difference, that is both arrogant and ignorant and is exactly the type of mentality that I hate the Rust community for.
3
Rust fixes a lot less issues then people claim it does, and it has so many more issues people are unwilling to acknowledge and too many people will fallaciously claim that those problems don't exist because they are unwilling to admit its not a perfect language, even the less religious folks are still too fanatic to be trusted. Rust is an annoying trend I really wish would stop just because of how immature the whole community actually is and how it violates simplicity for the sake of being easy, it creates too many holes for failure. Also its worse then C++ in a lot of manners especially because it forces paradigms on you, you can implement pretty much all of the memory safe functionality found in Rust in C++, its just not builtin natively which I don't see how that makes it as big an issue.
3
@mattelder1971 The OSI definition was an extrapolation of open source software that existed before the OSI, it became the standard because that's what open source was, regardless of whether it was formally defined before, it became formally defined and thus disagreement with it is a violation of the definition and thus not open source.
3
Breaking News: Redditors prove they don't know how to protest.
3
@mmstick When they stop pushing for me to redo everything in Rust, then I'll stop being so annoyed and pissed off by them, but until then, they are in a cult and I don't care.
3
@blinking_dodo There is no consistent rule in regards to mankind, in time all rules have exceptions, if you can't learn this lesson, you are the problem, not the exception.
3
@blinking_dodo That's literally what jury nullification is, the jury is allowed to completely ignore the law if they feel like it. As an aside the judge also can simply decide not to charge the defendant with a harsh sentence, like in California and New York they have laws that do prevent theft and murder but most judges never sentence anyone for crimes. It happens all the time. That's why you see their cities become crime ridden, the judge is literally allowed to ignore the law regarding punishment if he feels so. (and that's not even the problem with it, its just the exceptions principal of law being abused by activists)
3
Don't need containers, just post conflict dependency packages on the package source, download the conflict into separate location from the conflict package, and modify the PATH of the target application to foremost reference the conflict dependency's location before everything else. You can already do all this in a script, doing it with a package manager would be trivial. Additionally you could determine the most used package so when a conflict happens and it finds the most used package as a dependency changes, it'll convert the more used package to a standard one and convert the less used one to the redirect and convert all the packages dependent on that now conflict dependency to the redirected package.
3
Honestly at this point my bigger concern is the Rust community beside the language, I've criticized the language many times and every time I have those who saw what I said acted like children and throw a tantrum at me and never address my arguments and then try to gaslight me into saying they refuted what I've said with ad hominems and deflection fallacies. (or claim everything I said is irrelevant with pure fallacies) My criticisms include a negative disposition towards the syntax and an anti-modular centralized build system with a package manager akin to NPM or PIP that is required to do anything at all in Rust. I have explained in great detail my issue both practically and philosophically with these things only to be attacked personally and told everything I said doesn't matter without giving me a reason as to how that's the case. If anything its the Rust community itself that makes me hate Rust more then the language, which I already don't like, but that at least I would not mind as much if it was left an optional dependency, though I wish so too that wasn't the case. I do however hate the Rust mentality behind the language.
3
Honestly I still don't get why Linus incorporated Rust but then calls C++ a bad language and refuses to consider it at all, like every problem he complained about with C++ in the kernel Rust does 10 times worse. And no its not me saying Rust bad, (I personally despise it but that's whatever, no you can't change my mind, I am not arguing this, I don't care what you say, don't bother) but like Rust demands panics for memory safety issues to much of any runtime allocation protections, if you're not gonna have that, then your only other advantage for memory safety is at compile time with lifetime stuff, which isn't exactly unique to Rust, (and even then it being sophisticated also makes the learning curve immense) aside from C++ getting a borrow checker, (yes there is a proposal already being worked out, I'd expect less then a decade before its done, C++26 isn't finished so it may come then even, look up the Circle Compiler for a C++ demo) it already has a lot of builtin freestanding compile time memory protection through lifetime with RAII. Or what about other memory safe languages? So I'm kinda confused where the memory safety is at that point otherwise.
3
Except when it comes to C++.
3
@himagainstill The only reason the XZ could happen was because of those patches, none of the backdoors could activate on the distros that didn't ship a patched systemd, the most prominent being Arch. The other half of the issue is that binary files included in the upstream source repo didn't ever trigger any flags when it really should have, that type of behavior shouldn't have been permitted in the first place, you can't fully validate behavior if its in a binary format, if git code review could review said binary files then perhaps it be less of a concern, but even then the content of the binary file needs to be full observable and inert.
3
@arthurmoore9488 You don't need to perform tests for every build and you don't need to include them in your release builds, you shouldn't need to do that in the first place and that was half the problem. I've never seen a case where FOSS projects needed every single release to be compiled at the same time with a binary blob of any kind, if you need tests with binary files, it should be a separated thing from your release CI, literally every big name FOSS project does that, if you can't that's purely incompetence. Also the makefiles aren't an issue without the binary data, as I told you before, but you seem to have a reading disability, if you can't distinguish between a bug and malice, there is simply nothing you could have done, but the issue here wasn't something that couldn't be distinguished that way, it was the allowance of binary data and the injection of behavior into systemd by distros, the vulnerability was open long ago, it was just a matter of time for someone to use these manners to accomplish this, the makefiles aren't a vector for an attack by themselves, you can't make a makefile malicious by itself in a way that isn't gonna set off alarm bells. (unless you modify make or the other automation tools, which if you're already doing that, messing with makefiles is the least of your damn problem at the point)
3
@skia5635 I don't think FLOSS is gonna take off compared to FOSS especially since Libre doesn't change the concept semantically, its a redundant qualifier.
3
That was specifically the fault of OBS not registering the trademark.
2
@mskiptr "My point is it's not like that just to annoy you" Don't know why you'd phrase it like that, I don't expect it to be for me, I just hate the language syntax, clearly it was never supposed to appeal to me because I like C++ and C# way more. "because it's all hippie and different." My issue is there are at least 5 newer low level languages and every single one of them reads almost the same and do almost the exact same thing and none of them share anything with C or C++ in syntax, and there is some religious cult that surrounds them where criticism tends to turn into insults and unnecessarily harsh words. I don't mind if some new low level languages do Rust, but every single one of them doing the exact same thing, it pisses me off and people keep raving about it. "There are reasons and it does make sense" Which I know and find wrong, bad, or poor. I don't agree for even a second that Rust as it is needed to be designed the way it is to function most especially as a C alternative.
2
@TechJolt3d "Rust syntax is verbose as all hell." Necessary verbosity doesn't bug me, unnecessary verbosity does. Rust has a massive amount of unnecessary verbosity on that front, in C++ we have a solution to most of it coming at least, Rust has yet to even consider it. "If i had a guess as to why they used let, its probably because they want you to rely on type inference, not on explicitly identifying the type." C++ has auto and it does literally the same thing with also the capacity to provide type specification modifiers too, like references, mutable, and pointers. "I think they want you to use the type identifier very, very rarely." Two reasons this doesn't work and is dumb, I'll use Godot as an example. They banned the use of all type inference in their style guide. Simple reason why, they don't want to force anyone to require reading with a full semantic analyzer just to review code, type inference makes code review a hell because it requires otherwise unnecessary dependencies to perform code review and its easy to hide behaviors in that, especially when you have polymorphic types. This causes problems for reading code especially when explicit declarations could be just as if not shorter then type inference which is necessary for multi-person projects. If a project like Godot which tries to be easy to understand and simple, were to use something like Rust they would still need to ban the use of type inference because of that reason making the whole let thing literally interfering with the design of the project. That aside it also creates a disconnect between class variables and other variables where none need exist, the distinction makes little sense specifically because they are both variables that share the same everything, the only difference being where they're located which I disagree is a justification for a distinct declaration shape, its more things to remember without qualitative reason to.
2
@BrodieRobertson In that case it feels like we're repeating the mistakes of the past and learned nothing from X11 and xorg. Insanity is repeating something and expecting a different result seems applicable here.
2
I will always find it kinda dumb that gnome wants to be hyper-locked down in complete violation of the platform they are supposedly developing for. Sure a well designed experience is nice, but the first desire really should be to service the user, not to be perfect, for its the enemy of good.
2
To be honest, I don't find "Not attempt to profit from open-source or other software that is otherwise generally available for free" all that reprehensible, like I don't know almost anything about the Windows Store and even I knew that reselling of FOSS projects without the dev consent was a problem, and despite my absolute hatred of Microsoft, how this is read isn't all that bad. Now do I think its a great decision if they enforced it as written for that part? No, it makes no provision for an otherwise free project to officially be distributed for a price on the store like Krita, individuals should be allowed to set their price for that, but I don't think I can hate the idea if it was enforced as written. I don't see how its banning FOSS with this though, seems like massive overreach on what its actually doing, FOSS isn't being banned, even selling FOSS wasn't literally banned, only selling FOSS on the Windows Store when its otherwise free would literally be banned which isn't as bad. As for the second part "nor be priced irrationally high relative to the features and functionality provided by your product." is incredibly vague and describes no objective standard for how that will be enforced hence its stupid, but if that were under an intent, it still doesn't ban FOSS, all it really does imply is stop overcharging people for a below price product, which fair, I don't like having that provision either but outside the vague language I don't have a problem with the intent from a privately managed storefront.
2
There is literally no reason for snaps to exist in their original form thanks to flatpaks, pretty sure every single side solution they made was better solved by things that aren't snap, they pretty much suck in every single way and even for general use they are worse then the alternatives. Also hardcoded functionality is literal stupidity.
2
The problem is this is mostly an AUR problem, which has a comment section people legitimately use to resolve package problems, the issue is how many people will blame the package's problems on the app maintainers when its the package distributor that probably messed up, its less helpful when a package isn't named in a manner that makes it clear that its not the main package, like with the godot game engine you've got godot and godot-mono, granted both are under official releases which makes sense.
2
@anon_y_mousse Yeah, as a C/C++ dev, I have a very negative disposition of Rust community already, and even further as a amateur language designer I absolutely hate the design of Rust, (even if I like some of its ideas) but this move from the foundation pushes me into wanting to kill Rust as a language, I am most certainly going to hold this over the head of everyone who tells me to use Rust from now on. (unless they commission/contract me to use it without getting my position or won't let me argue back I suppose, but that should be obvious that I'm not gonna argue against an employer paying me to do something)
2
@cheese If you actually look at the aur comments and look into the specific things you're installing, the aur is perfect, the problem are people who don't do that, if you aren't willing to do that, then you're an idiot for trying to use the aur. Still yet to have a big problem with the aur, my entire system relies on it and I can still update perfectly fine without ever having an issue, over 70% of my system runs on it.
2
Its gonna take time for Wayland implementations to develop a standard that trumps X11, but its inevitable that such will happen.
2
@KookoCraft How about you actually present a refutation instead of attacking me? Also "bloat" by its nature is how most mainstream GUI software function, you literally can't have a DE without "bloat", I'd rather my software serve a frontend purpose compared to only being used by a handful of pretentious pricks. I work in software to make money just as much as I enjoy solving problems.
2
Lunduke mentioned, asshats that throw Lunduke under the bus have no place to to claim they're making the world a better place, they're the problem, Richard Brown is a bona fide bigot.
2
@jonnyso1 Maybe it could work, but in my experience managing a FOSS project of nowhere near comparable size to the Linux kernel, (and doesn't need nearly as many guarantees as the kernel does of course either) even having full control over the project managing compatibility with legacy behavior, especially when the language you use doesn't natively provide any semantic awareness, is an absolute nightmare, semantics behavior that is changed by internal behavior changes to a function pretty much throws the entire semantics guarantee out the window, (it could become downright impossible in some cases to work out correct semantics) while I do agree that it should be documented, decentralized management is always better then later centralized management, if you expected someone else to manage accounting for those changes, I am willing to bet a lot of people will have burnout, and if that happens to enough folks, it could kill development to either the Linux kernel or the Rust side, if the Rust side burns out then adding Rust to the kernel will have objectively been a mistake. At that point it basically would become a case of which collective actually has the harder head. Doesn't mean some of those C devs aren't at fault, but we also do need them for Linux to live so there kinda needs to be a limit to pissing them off too.
2
I kinda resent the Mesa devs for ignoring C++ and jumping right to Rust even though C is quite more interoperable between C++ then Rust. (given almost everything in C is also equally defined in C++) I don't really care about using Rust to achieve this, but Dave Airlie's comment fundamentally pisses me off because C++ in mostly just a superset of C so any C dev should've long gone to adopt C++ in the least since C++99, C++03, or C++11, the knowledge you have on C is still applicable and usable if but more refined whereas in Rust its not at all. I also resent Rust for being a trendy language that's a lot more vapid and stupid then people are willing to acknowledge because people are fanatic religious morons in regards to it.
2
@billeterk In part, yes.
2
Providing deprecation without alternative is a problem, also deprecating without a patch clarifying removal is entirely GLIBC's fault, honestly I don't see the point of even having one central package for GLIBC if every linux distro is gonna use package managers anyway.
2
"Maybe you're an emacs user and you don't know why you're here" If I used vim, I'd probably find this twice as funny, if I used emacs, I'd probably also be confused.
2
The EU has a long track record of not caring what harm their regulations cause.
2
@MyAmazingUsername Yeah, had Lenny been professional, tactful, and not adhered to the 4chan script, he would've made his enemies look the fool, would've made his image look spotless, shown how much he regards the project, and wouldn't have driven a wedge and a belief of hacks or insanity between him and the community. (destroying the entire reputation and even social media reputation of the nutjobs trying to politicize the project) This however instead became a childish spat and now both the degenerates of pride and 4chan have poisoned the well making only the pride folks look slightly better for they have less clear publicized insanity amongst them. A wise man makes his enemies appear foolish, but a fool only reinforces what everyone is already bound to know.
2
Two of my biggest Linux blunders: 1. Wiping my dad's entire Windows partition with previously irreplaceable files and work files because I modified the size of the Windows partition outside of Windows and install via the Anarchy Arch installer. (did recover the files with a deep scan and backup of everything left alive on the drive multiple times, lots of junk crap but also did save many of those necessary files) No there was no backup, that mistake has since cause my dad's Windows install to lack an activation key, however given the only reason he uses Windows is for a Cannon Inkjet Printer that has anti-Linux DRM in it, and otherwise he never touches Windows, suppose it doesn't matter. Least his computer is faster. Also reason I couldn't modify the Windows partition in Windows is that it wouldn't let me, the disk manager refused to actually do anything no matter what I did. 2. Tried to install a Manjaro/Grub dual-boot with Windows on my main rig, unfortunately my Windows install didn't use UEFI and I installed Grub with UEFI. Long story short it broke the bootloader for Windows and Grub knows it exists but has no capacity to invoke it since it wasn't setup for UEFI. In that specific case however didn't lose any files, but I can't risk changing the partition size so I'm locked on 300 gigs for a 1 TB drive where at least 400 gigs aren't being used. Lesson: Backup you're files dumbass, also stop screwing around with partitions.
2
@anon_y_mousse I mostly just haven't bothered because I don't even see a reason to get back to Windows and even the space problem was resolved because I'm such a moron I forgot I had installed an extra 500 gig SSD that was hidden inside my rig.
2
Ha, punishment for bad actors without copyright or IP, I've always said IP law is stupid and here is a demonstration of how goddamn stupid it is, government enforced monopolies are unnecessary and anti-market. We don't need legal crap, we've got free markets.
2
@JacksonChen666 Trademark of OBS was owned by Streamlabs, Trademark is an IP/copyright of identity and are mostly covered under the exact same laws. However they're anti-free market. And GPL doesn't technically have any authority over copyright itself, it merely says that the code itself isn't covered under a copyright. (and you can't retain copyright on that specific code, which you couldn't anyway unless you were the owner of said code)
2
My issue is that I want to run Windows for some of my multiplayer games without spyware and Microsoft malware. Windows 7 is the only one capable of this.
2
I'd probably prefer unverified be yellow and the "potentially unsafe" permission thing be changed as well to yellow saying "needs extra permissions" or something.
2
afaik they won't support plugins for a long while anyway
2
The real problem is that competition is being stunted by the government, and if consumers really cared about "right to repair" (which isn't a right, that's privilege that a government shouldn't be enforcing anyway) then they wouldn't continue to buy from John Deere, Apple, and Tesla as the consumer opinion would've initially started with "this is too locked down to use", but since they don't do this, its clear that these concepts do not actually improve the life of the consumer, only those who have a problem, which is a tiny minority of consumers. In essence its a form of tyranny by a minority. Also if not for IP law, there would be nothing actually stopping someone from just breaking opening the functionality of something and building a business on circumventing the locked down nature of these companies, for which the company would lose business and would become naturally encouraged to either be more open or keep losing business. The only real reason nobody does this, and thus locked down companies can lock down their "IP" is specifically because selling services to this is extremely damaging as the government and corporate establishment have built the legal infrastructure to punish anyone who can actually pull this off, least to the degree that the company could notice the hole in their pocket.
2
I would minimally probably ask that logs and source not be so cancer.
2
@terrydaktyllus1320 I'm pretty certain he wasn't talking about you in the OP given that you outright say you don't hate Red Hat and only really dislike systemd for being too much bloat for you personally, I think you jumped the gun with this comment seeing things that weren't there, nothing he said really addresses your perspective, he's talking about people who hate Red Hat and blame systemd for all startup issues on Linux even though you don't need to use it. "So you're allowed to have a negative opinion on CLI usage, but everyone has to accept "systemd is brilliant" just because you say so and if they have a different opinion, then they are just "haters"?" He literally didn't even say anything about this. You're talking about choice, he's talking about people who blame systemd for taking away choice which it doesn't do.
2
Rust is still a very immature and poorly designed language. Also anyone who says C++ is not memory safe doesn't know anything about C++, it is memory safe if you stop writing C code like a gibbin, it is just as safe as Rust.
2
@ Its still better then Rust which has refused to ever make a promise of ABI, not to mention it lacks the basic requirements for shared libraries and dynamic linkage to be usable. Zig has better ABI promises despite being in alpha and it doesn't make all that many compared to C, I don't think anyone understands how bad a problem that really is.
2
@gljames24 If you're getting into a semantic debate, you're already supposed to define your terms for use in then defining the semantics, you narrow your terms down to precise if but potentially commonly incorrect or incomplete definitions because it is better to get full understanding across then to leave a hole for misunderstanding. The lack of doing such in a debate is functionally poisoning the debate before it even started. (at minimum you're being a fool, worst case however is you're trying to win through a fallacy) You don't need to do this for general semantic understanding across a society or demographic, this only matters when you are getting into a debate, this case isn't a debate, its a well defined principal.
2
I'll always insist we call it a Machine Learning and not AI as it retains absolutely no intelligence or awareness.
2
This section is spaghetti code? Honestly the entire GTK is spaghetti code, its just less spaghetti code then implementing it yourself but most of the alternatives (specifically the younger ones) are less spaghetti. The only reason I can really see to choose GTK over most of the alternatives isn't because of a lack of spaghetti but for the sake of design consistency, not even flexibility. And truth be told I think gnome design is utterly trash still anyway, so would I prefer consistent trash or inconsistent choices? Honestly I prefer the later, I don't care about form, I like function.
2
Just another stupid GNOME take.
2
Leave it to Microsoft to screw up both user-friendliness and update functionality, even more genius that they interfere with one another, absolute morons.
2
Aerospace engineering honestly fails these standards way more then Linux does. These slides kinda deserved to be mocked, no software engineer can follow it to that degree in the first place and its especially stupid because none of the standards apply to any of their tools, none of the compilers follow that, and neither do any aerospace operating systems. There are reasons I could agree that Linux might not be suitable for the case, but what's described here is mostly false in that regard, the problem is complexity hides problems, especially bugs, the larger the source code and the more use cases to deal with the more complexity you have and thus more problems and bugs. As someone with experience in requirements, they don't fix this, requirements aren't designed to address this at all, even in safety standards, they make it easier to diagnosis, trace, and address, but they don't keep your software safe nor secure at all. Only reduced complexity does this and requirements don't enforce such a standard at all. Its conflating a completely different objective in safety-critical software engineering with requirements, which I say is stupid.
1
@mskiptr "The `value : type` thing comes from math and has appeared way earlier than C" Software development, especially at the lower levels has long since diverged from math foremost, typed programming languages have an older history using ALGOL-styled type specifiers then most others, the languages which it be understandable are mostly math specific markup languages or math processing languages, historically there is no reason to expect that of general use software languages which are not primarily used by mathematicians.
1
@Luxalpa "The `value: type` thing is also a requirement from a language standpoint in order to make it context free" Which I disagree with, I don't believe in the requirement of parsing necessitate a context free environment either, context is inherently described in all language, it is a requirement to understand language and the same to a degree applies to a parser, even with a parser it works fine for something simple but once you start making anything moderately complex context free becomes more of a hindrance especially for future development, what you gain in simplicity you lose in flexibility. The same applies to use by people which require context to understand any anyhow, and with a programming language this always applies, in C++ I wouldn't confuse a function vs. a variable syntax just because the context is necessary to know, I have to read the whole declaration to know anything about it anyway. I have not experienced a case of reading nor writing of C++ that served a practical purpose where I would confuse function and variables for example, and its not that difficult to make it easy for human readers to not write it so it could be outright confusing to know such information. I've heard this claim before, most especially with declarations and I have always found it to be an excuse, context free is not nearly as context free with languages and I don't find it all that useful if you are building a new language, you can make the difference easy to recognize without adhering to context free, it just requires deliberate design, which you have do regardless of whether you make it context free anyhow, it saves you no time nor regards. "syntax highlighting, error checking, type hints and auto-complete are all majorly messed up." I've yet to find this as a problem on my end, I don't have experience with any language use that already does the things I say having this problem, C, C++, C#, Java, Dart, none of these things have caused me problems like that. "Another issue is that for example rusts tuple syntax would be conflicting with its function-call syntax here (writing `value(i32)` would be incredibly messed up). A simple statement like `run_code(some_var)` would be unparsable," I don't know why you assume my issue suggests that Rust should change one part of itself and nothing else in order to satisfy me, like where you think I wouldn't understand that the language would need to change to accommodate such designs is beyond me, I am entirely aware that a language that does what I like would need to be something designed from the ground up to not be like Rust. Your claim of my character that I don't understand how languages work is quite inane, I don't have a well tested formally designed language under my belt but I have written my own parsers and languages before, I know how language design works in the least. "Additionally, you have things like the `mut` (or `ref`) keyword making the entire thing even more messy." Well that was already solved in C++ anyway, modifiers are trivial to resolve this type of stuff, I've written parsers that do just that, context aware parsers aren't really that hard, wiring up semantic understanding might be a bit of a chore but even with a decently produce AST its quite simple.
1
Green logo bad.
1
@SeekingTheLoveThatGodMeans7648 That's not even what Ecclesiastes 7:16 refers to, its caution against vain religion one believes to be righteous, the only correct interpretation of that text refers to rituals and ceremony, (say like demanding everyone must dress formally for church) not violations of God's Law, God's Law makes it clear that if one even should dress in a manner that would confuse the sexes he is a disgrace, the same would apply to those who act or speak in such manners. I won't speak in manners to enable confusion hence why I refuse to acknowledge the pronouns. Also "they" is a terrible substitute because its a plural being used in a potentially plural context obscuring the information of the conversation, and I have direct and repeated experience of this fact causing confusion, including in the cases where people demanded they be called by such. "They" is linguistically a terrible pronoun for use for a singular person, it should be avoid wherever possible. (it also introduces higher capacity for overlapping characters covered thus requiring use of nouns to properly clarify the sentence for every party involved thus further invalidating its use) As for when to witness, sure there are times of it, its not like I go preaching every time I come across someone doing this or demanding I use their pronouns, it takes them either asking relevant questions or saying something that brings up a moral dilemma, which usually sparks a full conversation in the first place. (unless of course getting into the conversation is banned in which case its to be avoided anyway) I'm also not sure what you mean by mirroring "the salvational manners of God", only case where I can see that make sense is if you're a Pelagianist or Semi-Pelagianist since salvation isn't voluntarily elective nor a choice.
1
@jemsterr Not to mention when you push those affirmative action principals, not only are you violating the meritocracy, but you're intentionally handicapping the effectiveness of those involved, also for someone who has experienced the diversity bullcrap numerous times, it pisses me off to see it happen again and makes me want to wring this dudes damn neck that he even suggested something like this, I have experienced enough of the things I like and love being destroyed by wokeness and diversity, especially of leftist talking points that he just mentioned, I'd much rather the FSF not be destroyed by leftist ideologues who will once again push out all dissenting thought and turn it into a socialist echo chamber like reddit. I am so goddamn sick of it.
1
Actually open source can be trademarked, common words stitched together to make a phrase that isn't common are covered under trademark, this was decided long ago and if you actually knew trademark law, then you'd know this fact. (for example if I make a specialized form of steel called Pig Steel, I can trademark that and despite being two common words, I would have full trademark rights to it) Also trademarks are context aware, so even in the case open source were used in another place, say you used it in construction unrelated to software, you can still trademark it for software because it will be considered an unrelated category. The only case for which trademark wouldn't happen is if people were selling your something under the trademark before you registered it and you have no control over those sales. From a legal point of view, you can't sell open source so this shouldn't be much of a problem.
1
@BrodieRobertson I have nothing against an initial well crafted experience, but its not the DE designers job to insulate the users to some "perfect" experience and gnome I think goes more then too far trying to play the control freak for their users. Its a common element of developmental discussion to not aim for perfection, and it makes me kinda find gnome as quite wasteful because it thinks it can achieve that somehow.
1
Google is not part of the private sector and honestly neither is any of the other browsers, not a single one of them isn't corporately run or funded thus they are not part of the private sector, corporations are literally just syndicates of the state, they're called corporations because they're the body of the state, they enforce government policy (see facebook and twitter colluding with the FBI as mere examples) corpus = body, corporations are a socialist concept, this is socialism. (not to mention that the government itself can decide at any point without any oversight to ban, halt, and nationalize any business it wishes, meaning the government owns the business, not the people running the business, he who can halt the means of production owns the means of production and is thus responsible for what the means of production does)
1
@guss77 Technically could achieve that if you made a QML JIT or AOT compiler, but I'm almost certain nobody wants to do that and its worse then just rewriting the effects in C++.
1
@guss77 Why would they do that with QML having a JIT compiler, why bother deloading or reloading its bytecode, that's honestly really dumb. Hell if you have a JIT compiler you're not that far from an AOT compiler, if you save and load the cache, the least you could do is AOT the bytecode and save that instead. Still doesn't make sense why they would rely on a disk cache for this though, this should be cached in RAM by default. (and only if it takes up a lot of memory should it be cached on the disk)
1
It's not EAC's fault and it doesn't just impact EAC, that's just the currently known biggest subject of the issue, the problem is GLIBC's, even Linus Torvald agrees.
1
I can't see a good reason for a non-commercial local personal computer to not have at least a length feedback, a common user can't even get exposed to an exploit that would take advantage of that unless someone was snapping the screen, which if they can do then they likely already have a keylogger for this exact reason. I don't see why we can't have a user-friendly version of sudo that's stripped down and by default supports this. (if you strip out much of the sudo functionality a common user most certainly won't be using, which Valve could totally do without introducing bugs, it would probably make the sudo command more secure, after all that's literally the point of doas, double points if it was based on doas already)
1
@kirayoshikage4057 "I can't see a good reason why a a system and a kernel that's primarily used for shielding toddlers from themselves by putting it on a server or in your phone and limiting what you can do with it should cater to toddlers when installed manually." This is a strawman fallacy. "Consider using windows," I prefer Linux, am I child because I like feedback when I'm performing a localized su command? Why is that so wrong? "it will even reboot your computer while you're doing something important," Unless you're using Windows 7 or earlier, especially now that Win7 update is dead. But that aside I've been daily driving Arch Linux for like 4 or 5 years now, I don't need that type of invasive crap. I've never even had Windows 8 or later installed on a personal rig of mine. Not even in a VM. "because it knows better than you when it needs to reboot or why at all." Cool cool. "And judging by the comment you wrote, it actually does know better than you, seems like you will enjoy it very much." You didn't even present an argument, you just strawmaned me and then attacked my character with ad hominems presumptively. You sound like the type of jerk that either goes "I run Arch" or "I compile Gentoo", you're not special jackass. By the way doas literally does majority of what I said, the only thing it doesn't do is the length feedback thing which is only supported sort of by sudo. Why are so mad at a suggestion for a separate user-friendly version of sudo? Its not like the Steam Deck runs on servers or that it needs server security features, it doesn't need all the admin behaviors sudo has in the first place anyway, hence why doas is already a demonstration of what I was saying.
1
@kirayoshikage4057 "yes you're literally a child" Ad hominem "it's like expecting a speaker or a father to congratulate you every time you hit the nail with your hammer and don't smash something else." Again ad hominem, I'm not seeking your affirmations, I don't care what you think of me, I've given you all you need to know who I am and what I am that matters, you just can't argue because you don't have a rational position and would rather lash out at those you disagree with like a child.
1
@kirayoshikage4057 You're the one using fallacies. I'm not the one acting childish.
1
@kirayoshikage4057 Cool cool
1
Finally people are realizing how trash Manjaro is, its the only distro I've ever seen where you'll consistently get functioning packages break dependencies and brick either the applications or the entire system.
1
GNU being a toxic ideology? ReAlLy?!?! Who would've guessed? I certainly wasn't aware that this would happen, no way, not even a little, absolutely not, so totally not.
1
@no_name4796 Fair, they were the ones that wrote min and max as macros inside the windows.h file.
1
This is basically a software version of "who watches the watchers?"
1
@switchblade6226 Honestly I kinda don't, X11 already provides a stable platform, Wayland already supports X11 windows, (sure a bit gimped but its not like its unusable already) so with all that done, all that its better to have a long term goal you're never gonna run out of then to rush it and need to replace it over and over again. I see it similar to IPv6 and 64-bit architecture, (granted with 64-bit this is referring to when it wasn't a nearly as common yet, obviously that's a demonstration of the success of hitting that end goal) it took a while to come about and it'll take a while longer before its the standard that literally everyone uses, until then its still usable to use the old standard and wait for the new one to be not only better then the old but able to massively outlast the old ones record with no need for explicit considerations.
1
This sounds stupid, the package exists, use it at your own peril, the existence of the code isn't under copyright or licensing so just rewrite it then, are people stupid?
1
@terrydaktyllus1320 But there's a "Red Hat evil" guy right above in this thread, what you saying you're "not aware of the hate", calling Red Hat as equal to MS is exactly that type of statement. And its pretty common, especially when you get into the systemd topics that Red Hat hatred will popup and they'll just start blaming Red Hat for the fact that systemd is so common on Linux even though that was a voluntary decision by a bunch of users and distro maintainers because it was the least crap init system at the time. The only thing that even remotely sort of sucks about systemd, and which is a fairly new problem with it, is that you can get a lot more problems with things that have or need support for an init system as often times that means anything other then systemd can break your apps as so many things are so heavily integrated into systemd now.
1
Mozilla is already rather compromised by leftist ideology, I'm not going through another Wizards of the Coast situation.
1
xkcd 927 to the rescue
1
@iplyrunescape305 It already does, there are things they're already doing that do effect distribution, IBM and Red Hat is also being sued for discriminating against white folks, and if you're discovered on their forums even incidentally having a position they don't agree with, they ban you. Apple being friendly isn't an issue because they don't go searching and don't ban you over it, (Apple's fanbase statistically is actually a lot of right leaning politics as well despite their ESG positions) the folks at RH, Mint, and Gnome are only some of the ones that do. Mint has outright said numerous times if you don't 100% agree with their political opinions, they want to eliminate you from their userbase, outright saying "we don't want you here, don't use our distro, get out of here".
1
@iplyrunescape305 It already does, there are things they're already doing that do effect distribution, IBM and Red Hat is also being sued for discriminating against wh*tes, and if you're discovered on their forums even incidentally having a position they don't agree with, they ban you. Apple being friendly isn't an issue because they don't go searching and don't ban you over it, (Apple's fanbase statistically is actually a lot of right leaning politics as well despite their Blackrock/Vanguard positions) the folks at RH, Mint, and Gnome are only some of the ones that do. Mint has outright said numerous times if you don't 100% agree with their politics, they want to rid you from their userbase, outright saying "we don't want you here, don't use our distro, get out of here".
1
@iplyrunescape305 It already does, there are things they're already doing that do effect distribution, IBM and Red Hat is also being sued for discriminating on skin color and other immutable/illegal characteristics, and if you're discovered on their forums even incidentally disagreeing with them, they ban you. Apple being friendly isn't an issue because they don't go searching and don't ban you over it, (Apple's fanbase statistically is actually a lot of right leaning politics as well despite their Blackrock/Vanguard positions) the folks at RH, Mint, and Gnome are only some of the ones that do. Mint has outright said numerous times if you don't 100% agree with their politics, they want to rid you from their userbase, outright saying "we don't want you here, don't use our distro, get out of here".
1
@iplyrunescape305 It already does, there are things they're already doing that do effect distribution, IBM and Red Hat is also being sued for discriming on skin color and other immutable/illegal characteristics, and if you're discovered on their forums even incidentally disagreeing with them, they ban you. Apple being friendly isn't an issue because they don't go searching and don't ban you over it, (Apple's fanbase statistically is actually a lot of right leaning politics as well despite their Blackrock/Vanguard positions) the folks at RH, Mint, and Gnome are only some of the ones that do. Mint has said numerous times if you don't 100% agree with their politics, they want to rid you from their userbase, outright saying "we don't want you here, don't use our distro, get out of here".
1
@iplyrunescape305 It already does, there are things they're already doing that do effect distribution, IBM and Red Hat is also being sued for discriming on skin color and other immutable characteristics, and if you're discovered on their forums even incidentally disagreeing with them, they ban you. Apple being friendly isn't an issue because they don't go searching and don't ban you over it, (Apple's fanbase statistically is actually a lot of right leaning politics as well despite their Blackrock/Vanguard positions) the folks at RH, Mint, and Gnome are only some of the ones that do. Mint has said numerous times if you don't 100% agree with their politics, they want to rid you from their userbase, outright saying "we don't want you here, don't use our distro, get out of here".
1
@iplyrunescape305 It already does, there are things they're already doing that do effect distribution, IBM and Red Hat is also being sued for discriming on skin color and other immutable characteristics, and if you're discovered on their forums even incidentally disagreeing with them, they ban you. Apple being friendly isn't an issue because they don't go searching and don't ban you over it, (Apple's fanbase statistically is actually a lot of right leaning politics as well despite their Brock/Vguard positions) the folks at RH, Mint, and Gnome are only some of the ones that do. Mint has said numerous times if you don't 100% agree with them, they want to rid you from their userbase, outright saying "we don't want you here, don't use our distro, get out of here".
1
@iplyrunescape305 It already does, there are things they're already doing that do effect distribution, IBM and Red Hat is also being sued for discriming on skin color and other immutable characteristics, and if you're discovered on their forums even incidentally disagreeing with them, they ban you. Apple being friendly isn't an issue because they don't go searching and don't ban you over it, (Apple's fanbase statistically is actually a lot of right leaning politics as well despite their Brock/Vguard positions) the folks at RH, Mint, and Gnome are only some of the ones that do. Mint has said numerous times if you don't 100% agree with them, they want to rid you from their userbase, outright saying "we don't want you here, don't use our distro, get out of here".
1
@iplyrunescape305 It already does, there are things they're already doing that do effect distribution, IBM and Red Hat is also being sued for discriming on skin color and other immutable characteristics, and if you're discovered on their forums even incidentally disagreeing with them, they ban you. Apple being friendly isn't an issue because they don't go searching and don't ban you over it, (Apple's fanbase statistically is actually a lot of right leaning politics as well despite their Brock/Vguard positions) the folks at RH, Mint, and Gnome are only some of the ones that do. Mint has said a lot if you don't agree with them, they want to excise you from their userbase.
1
@iplyrunescape305 It already does, there are things they're already doing that do effect distribution, IBM and Red Hat is also being sued for discriming on skin color and other immutable characteristics, and if you're discovered on their forums even incidentally disagreeing with them, they ban you. Apple being friendly isn't an issue because they don't go searching and don't ban you over it.
1
Just to point out Python is technically running in a VM so it would always be above Java in that list, the difference is that Java is produces a bytecode output whereas Python is really only ever interpreted as is (yes it has a bytecode but you will never see it, if people want a performant Python script, they just compile it to a native binary anyway with something like py2exe or cpython)
1
Trademark, Copyright, and Patents are all violations of natural rights because you don't have a right to conceptions because they can't be owned, (also organizations can not own anything, ownership is reserved for a private individual but that's beside the point) there is no proof of ownership of concepts, so all IP law violates the the requirements to be owned, it also violates innocent until proven guilty as there is no innocent suspect in IP law regardless of application to following the law, it should not be required that anyone adhere to the registry of acceptable government acts to say what is law in order to follow the law. IP law violates the basic rights regarding liberty .
1
As a Reformed Christian and a former Catholic, I can't tell if the code of ethics is a joke or not, a lot of them are good but then I see something like "don't move someone to laughter" and now it feels like a Puritan being hyper-legalistic completely ignoring that Yahweh is also the God of comedy. Also I refuse to be buried dead because I don't want people worshiping or even acknowledging my dead body.
1
 @Komatik_ That doesn't change the position, asceticism is still a heresy.
1
I get the issue, but I despise outright crashing users, sounds like the bottles devs are lazy gits that don't actually understand how to design software for users, there a plenty of more effective ways to prevent users reporting the problems to you before you resort to crashing the program.
1
Its sort of understandable maybe if you're a frontend dev dealing with users that can't do much of anything technical and may complain about issues wrongly and really easily without attempting to solve it, which AppImage sort of is, but the problem here is that that's most certainly no way to treat someone who is skilled or competent at the technical side, especially when you're already being toxic by just pumping and dumping your kind of stupid version of Flatpaks. (not to say those who use it are stupid, but it really is a worse alternative to a problem that flatpak specifically solved way better)
1
My problem with this is more so that the slide is conflating requirements with complexity reduction but those aren't even remotely the same thing, they have no relation but he just makes everyone assume it is, if the issue is complexity that hides issues, the answer isn't to document the complexity, its to ensure the complexity is as small as possible, requirements don't ensure this. I can totally understand Linux not serving this purpose, maybe a Linux-like kernel/system could, something that emulates it but in a highly simplified manner, but the argument that you could fit Linux into this seems incredibly flawed to me especially if we're gonna justify it by requirements.
1
@jonnyso1 "The Rust standard library is build on top of a lot of "unsafe" code that if turned out to be unsound, would fail all the assumptions everyone that depends on it." That's not actually true though, safety isn't the issue for that point, its semantics, there is nothing in the standard library that would violate those assumptions because the the unsafe behavior below Rust is preserved through the legacy of the C standard library which is always backwards compatible, and if those semantics were to change it will break Rust. I don't expect the Rust standard library to either change semantics unless it wants to break all preexisting code, the C and C++ standard library is full of deprecations they can't get rid of for a reason, unless Rust does that it would fail to be a usable systems language at all. "if you change it we'll be the ones responsible for keeping up with it, just document your stuff properly" But that requires nearly as many Rust contributors just doing that as C ones, every change needs to be managed by both a Rust and C developer then. (and if that fails, Rust will break) Maintenance to that level is an unmanageable problem without a tool that forces it, which the kernel devs cannot use. (and I speak that from experience, even on a small level maintaining that is an impossible and often stupid task)
1
@jonnyso1 Maybe it could work, but in my experience managing a FOSS project of nowhere near comparable size to the Linux kernel, (and doesn't need nearly as many guarantees as the kernel does of course either) even having full control over the project managing compatibility with legacy behavior, especially when the language you use doesn't natively provide any semantic awareness, is an absolute nightmare, semantics behavior that is changed by internal behavior changes to a function pretty much throws the entire semantics guarantee out the window, (it could become downright impossible in some cases to work out correct semantics) while I do agree that it should be documented, if you expected someone else to manage accounting for those changes, I am willing to bet a lot of people will have burnout, and if that happens to enough folks, it could kill development to either the Linux kernel or the Rust side and if the Rust side burns out then adding Rust to the kernel will have objectively been a mistake. It then becomes a case of who has the harder head.
1
@kreuner11 But those sames checks can and have already been done in freestanding C++ implementations, (and I would prefer C++ just because those implementations can also come with user policy control) so it doesn't make Rust any better at it, and its not the only example of a systems language that's done that.
1
My display server on one of my CPUs used to randomly and completely hang out of nowhere, thought it was a display server problem, it required a reboot to fix, but now I wonder if that wasn't a kernel panic, replacing the CPU had long since fixed it.
1
Imagine being offended by a celebration that even the irreligious celebrate openly and proudly, this is the first world problem of first world problems, always gotta find something to be offended over, I have to wonder how these people who actually get offended can even function in the real world, they must be incredibly shallow getting triggered at the drop of a hat, because there is no way they can think deeply on anything no matter how intelligent they are.
1
@@voidfield101 The only reason that Linus actually had to eject C++ was because C++99 and C++03 only fixed the inconsistent compiler behavior problems, the standard was resulting still inconsistent before that, (and in some measures it needed tuning and refining even afterwards) it took until C++11 before anything beyond the compilers standards themselves really became mature, it was a nightmare to manage before that so its no wonder they dropped it in Linux, however C devs have little reason to be against it now, they were burned by the language in the early aughts and that resentment is part of why Rust exists and why they hate C++ still, granted not the whole reason nor does it define Rust in any entirety, it has good ideas you don't get from that mindset, but just as many stupid ones. However the reason most C projects rejected C++ was because of that period during or before C++99, though even then it was safer then C. So if safety and performance were the only concern like Rust devs claim then C++ would've been adopted, this is how you can tell that claim is a farce. "Fanatic religious people can be found in any language like C as well." I've not noticed them shoving their religion down everyone's throats and demanding of every major project that C be accepted as a standard. I've also yet to see anyone try to claim C has no problems, I have seen that with Rust, and even if I explained it to them they resorted to saying wrong and calling me names, lots of fallacious talk defending I've yet to ever see with any C devs. "There are many people that (before Rust) always mentioned how that project X has to be rewritten in C or that Python program is much better in C++." Depends on the project and language, though I will say any compiled (and usually statically linked) language is better then an interpreted script language for anything that isn't throwaway simply because it'll either perform much more consistently and more efficiently or so long as its open source its just as likely to be fixed when it does break. NodeJS and Python production programs have given me more headaches then I've ever received from even alpha programs in compiled languages. "The important part is that the developers get the work done, and forcing the maintainers to use a language they don't want to is not going to benefit anyone." Maybe and I don't have an issue with it being Rust if not for the Rust community itself being so cult-like. Disagree with the syntax, I must not know what I'm talking about. Disagree with the build process or have concerns that it violates KISS, doesn't matter, "your opinion is stupid". These are comments I've heard constantly and continuously coming out of the Rust community not just a few times, but every time I've met a Rust developer. I don't go out of my way cause I actually kinda hate Rust so I'm not the target demographic and won't venture just to attack others or their tools, but every time I've had a chance to meet a Rust dev, even ones that claim an appeal to accomplishment, the result has always the same. "Personally I also ran into issues with C++ type resolution that got quite annoying." Which version of C++? I remember them in C++99 and C++03 but since C++11 and C++14 I've had no issues.
1
@@voidfield101 "Templates in general are pretty badly implemented in C++ you can't really use the typical Header/Source-File separation with them" Templates are unique in that they were introduced to solve a problem without the backbone to actually manage them at all causing all types of issues, if you want to break the C++ compiler templates have always been the way to do so, I'm aware at how crazy the whole thing with templates are, its not a bad idea if it had that backbone to make it stop being annoying, something that modules will actually also address alongside reducing the header-source division we've had. "Personally I have 2 issues with C++. The way you can do some things like even just a function parameter (could use parameters as a value, reference, pointer, smart pointer or move schemantics)" Not sure why this is relevant to an issue. "same with polymorphic which is currently on a bit of a downward trend because it tends to make programming interfaces harder to maintain or a ton of refactoring when the class tree changes." Its a paradigm, use it reasonably and responsibly and this doesn't crop up, take a look at Godot's source for example and the polymorphic behavior is well used without being complex or making it that hard to manage or maintain. You need to reasonably approach every paradigm as a tool to use. "The second is throwing an exception which requires a lot of space in the binary to do stack unwinding, it can be disabled but it does break every API that uses try-catch and throw." Yeah the standard really should have a manner to allow generating code when a codebase uses exceptions that disables it without breaking things. How to do that is in itself a question. "A think I personally don't like in C++ and Rust is the fact that their ABI isn't considered stable, so different compilers and different compiler versions may produce a binary which has different call conventions, RTTI layout etc. so you can't use create a dynamically linked C++ ABI or Rust, you can still create a dynamic library in those languages but it usually requires marking the API as "extern C" (so they use the stable C ABI), not ideal but doable without too much hassle. "Honestly those are just my 2 cents on that. I have ditched C++ for the most part (except when I have to use it for some APIs). I still use C especially since most of the embedded frameworks I got used to are implemented with C." I prefer C++ because of the lack of limitations, I use the features I can rely on and am happy to have features I might use if the need arises reasonably so. "I do have a few issues with it, I think there should be more support for not relying on cargo (which is a big part of the compile time as it also does the dependency management)," Yeah, I've pointed out how that's a really bad design, Rust folks didn't like when I said that and got really mad at me for suggesting that build dependency on a package system is a problem. "I think no-std (embedded use case) support is still not optimal. and async/await is not well standardized and relies on third-party libraries making their own APIs on top of it (which also makes no-std usage of async not easy)." Yeah, I kinda more despise the paradigms, justifications, and syntax of Rust just as much, I will always find a way to avoid it when I can.
1
If I could choose between contributing and paying, it solve the paying problem for me, idk about anyone else.
1
That second to last response to the issue was exceedingly stupid for xdg-portals.
1
Firmware updates don't replace the hardware's firmware, that's pretty much always inbuilt and irreplaceable, and no you can't see that and it can't be audited, there is no way to examine that. What usually happens is firmware updates download to a local writable place and the chip firmware tries to load the firmware update automatically, the update generally operates on the basis of a hidden encryption key that was put into the machine (or the chip firmware even) so that only their updates can be installed and used, often times this firmware is also encrypted so aside from needing to decompile the firmware, which you might have to get access to, it likely is obfuscated and encrypted as well, least until its in a place the chip can load the new firmware on. The only way you can install firmware through this without being related to the company is if you get access or leak that special key, which has happened a few times, but not to every company, and what always happens is a rapid change and occasionally even a small sized recall of devices most affected by something like that, they'll try to change the secret key in as many devices as possible on the hardware. (because yes it is written into the hardware to do this) Usually the key's identity itself is airgapped and has a lot of security, legal and physical, surrounding the specific case, but not every company does this, and sometimes the companies that don't do this screw other companies over when they get hacked, but all this has been generally uncommon aside from certain hardware manufacturers.
1
@DanielRumbacher Their goals would be great if only they could actually be reasonable, but they're completely poisoned by ideology alone, they don't care about regular people, they just want to enforce a dumb religion, its not pragmatic and unless someone starts a successful GNU death cult, there is no way its going to succeed, especially when they keep screwing with regular and reasonable people and pissing them off and then complaining at them for using something they have no choice but to use.
1
@liquidsnake6879 Well first off GNU's definition of libre is stupid because its restrictive and inherently anti-liberty, (which is the reason you'd even steal the term for) which means its anti-libre, you can't be free if you prevent people from doing as they wish. There is nothing positive nor noble about GNU's goals when the whole principal revolves around ideologically bashing anybody that doesn't agree with them and then performing a bait and switch culticly telling everyone else that they're anti-liberty, literally violating the entire principal they supposedly claim to support. Even more idiotic they don't fight on any other principal, they have no capacity nor will to benefit anyone and their so shortsighted that all they do is piss everyone off. GNU will always be niche specifically because being ideologically driven instead of rationally driven is never productive, its just retarded. I honestly say software would be better if GNU didn't exist, its contribution can be independently achieved and according to market forces it would have to, maybe you could argue it happened earlier then without them, but I really have to wonder if its not their fault that the whole thing including its principal has gone absolutely nowhere in 25 years. Also what kind of cancer do you have to be to create the GPLv3, what kind of brainrot must you have to use the principals of proprietary monopolies to enforce your own monopoly, copyleft is just as retarded as copyright, both sides are just in my estimation more in league with Satan then any good principal.
1
Honestly the only big reason I can see for the systemd hate is because its mainstream and successful, not because its got problems. Its like crabs in a bucket, when you reach the top, everyone will try to drag you down. (which also means they're scrapping for any little niggle of problems they can make up with systemd instead of being reasonable about their issues which are extremely tiny compared to what it does) Whether others are more suitable for any specific use case is not relevant for general user use case and its not like anyone is prohibiting you from running anything outside systemd, it just takes a massive amount of work to handle anything differently and it would require deliberate integrations from developers who are already used to systemd.
1
@terrydaktyllus1320 "What if I want to just exercise the choice that Linux gives me to build my systems the way that I want to without having something I don't want to use running on my systems?" Go do it, nobody is obligated to help you, it should be naturally expected that going against the grain is gonna be met with friction, that's literally what choosing to use Linux does. Whether the cost is there for you is your choice, I don't care, just don't ask me to do anything for you when I don't care, especially if you piss me off by complaining about an issue I find utterly pointless. "And how about you let the developers themselves decide what they want to work on," Sure, but if they want mass appeal, they need to appeal to the market or die out. Only a fool insists his way is right when facing market forces. If you don't appeal to the wider audience at all, you get what you deserve. "rather than being a "zealot"" Why you calling me a zealot? I literally told you do whatever you want, just stop being an asshole about it and insisting your way is superior, some of us are fine with parts of our system just working without us thinking about it. "and wanting them all to work on just the projects you want" When did I say this? "just so you can end up with "one monolithic Linux" to your "exacting" standards that everyone else just to has to accept" I never said this, but if its good for the user/consumer, its better for everyone. A decision that insists its way is better but is a hassle for the user is appealing to nothing but fools if it expects to mean anything more then a niche. If you don't appeal to a mass market you don't get to complain about the lack of market appeal. "and all because you're unwilling to put in time and effort to learn Linux properly yourself." Thanks boomer. "Learn Linux" as if I haven't been here for years. What you think of as learning Linux and what I think of as learning Linux aren't the same, by what standard do you think you can judge me on? My system works very well and it doesn't break, I don't care to switch, why should I when I'm comfortable where I am? "I don't "hate" systemd because I know Linux well enough to simply "skirt around" it on the systems I build - "hate" is for lazy people that can't put in time and effort to learn how to empower themselves to make better choices."" "Better choices" by whose standard? Yours? So you force your opinion of whats right and wrong on me? Quite communist thinking I should say, that you insist to know my life and priorities better then I do, its that type of stupid thinking that causes people to starve, that you know about my system better then I do despite the fact I built it and have been exclusively (no dual boot whatsoever) daily driving it for over half a decade. I can live my life better by my own decisions then listening to a parrot such as you.
1
@terrydaktyllus1320 "You're a complete stranger on the Internet, I could care less that you are pissed off, or what caused you to be pissed off." Then you're being hypocritical. "Your thinking is too complex - developers in the Open Source world make the software they want to make." If its popular this stops being the case. It becomes a job. "If you choose not to use it, that's your choice. And you've contradicted your first paragraph because you said it's all about your choice, but the choice the developers make is not their one to make." Where did I say this? Nothing I said was complex, its basic market forces, its literally basic economics. How is anything I say got anything to do with telling developers not to do what they want? If they are expecting to work on a project without appealing to an audience, they get what they deserve, they'll have no market appeal and never be popular. "If the cap fits, wear it. I've never met you, I've simply described what a zealot is. You decide if it fits your demeanour or not." You used the word as an insult at me even though I don't care. If I was a zealot I never would've said I don't care. "Like I said, "complete stranger on the Internet" - all I can do is examine the words you write here."" That's not how this works, foremost because you engage me when I didn't prescribe anything to anyone, all I said is in regards to people complaining and yet they get mad because something is popular, if that wasn't the case, they wouldn't act so irrational. If you can't understand why people use systemd, nothing you do with ever be as popular or desired as systemd, if you can't think of good points of systemd, that suggest you have a problem, not me. I already admitted that systemd is not perfect in every case, you've still yet to say its even suitable for any case because your obsessed with hating it, not with providing an alternative. That's why you responded to such a milquetoast statement with such vitriol. "Choice is good for the consumer." In a competitive market where competition is needed, that means if an aspect of the market isn't competing or isn't suitable. Competition is useless if its not for the sake of an endgoal of making people's lives better in some metric. For systemd to be majority use without consumer outcry demonstrates that its inherently already doing that, its why its so common. Choice is not an objective good, choice paralysis is one of the most primary problems with overabundance of choice, also standards and practices go to crap, the issue in regards to choice is when it comes to restricting choice, nothing else, and systemd does nothing to prevent that. Not going out of your way to help you is not hindering you, those are completely different metrics. "Use of the derogatory term "boomer" usually means "I am overwhelmed by my perception of your knowledge and experience so have to try to negate it by childish name-calling"." Okay boomer. "Don't worry, I take that as a compliment - even if you're just demonstrating the same "cancel culture" that you will probably claim to abhor."" That's quite an unhinged statement, from dismissing your nonsense with a meme being taken as a compliment by exclusively you to you now accusing me of cancel culture despite the fact I'm not targeting you at all is insane. That sounds too much like a troll, but I have heard dumber insanity of the premise not following and other fallacies before so I wouldn't be surprised if you were legit. Whatever man, live and let live, I don't care, stop demanding I give you crap for free and stop demanding that I care. "Yes, my standards." My standards are superior then, your opinion is worthless. Thanks for proving my point regarding relativism then. "I know what I want, I don't know what you want - and as a "stranger on the Internet", I don't care what you want because what you want doesn't affect what I want, and vice versa." Cool, now if you would actually live that way. "Don't pretend you don't think that way either" I still don't get why you even bothered responding if this is supposedly your position. If you truly thought this way, you wouldn't have responded. "it is simply "exercising choice" which was my original point that you'd understand if you read the comment properly and wiped the spittle from your monitor, sonny."" Your demanding people provide choice for you, nobody is obligated to do jack for you, why you insist that what I said is some massive slight against you because you're offended when I called out your stupid "I only hate systemd because its popular" defense is beyond me. There is no reason to attack me on that unless its true, its a cornered pig that squeals the loudest.
1
@terrydaktyllus1320 "You're a complete stranger on the Internet, I could care less that you are pissed off, or what caused you to be pissed off." "And how about you let the developers themselves decide what they want to work on, rather than being a "zealot" and wanting them all to work on just the projects you want just so you can end up with "one monolithic Linux" to your "exacting" standards that everyone else just to has to accept - and all because you're unwilling to put in time and effort to learn Linux properly yourself." If you didn't care about what a strangers thinks or says, there is no reason to say this and accuse me of being a zealot. One who does not care does not respond, its like an atheist saying they don't care about religion arguing over religious matters so deliberately you'd think they had their own god to preach about.
1
@formbi Libre wasn't though and its basically that everyone has source access.
1
Should try checking out Ladybird and SerenityOS.
1
Honestly 90% of the Fediverse hosts are themselves trash, Facebook is honestly a better social media network then them, which is hilarious at demonstrating how bad the Fediverse actually is. That whole Gab thing demonstrated that fact.
1
A lot of Fediverse instances are run by absolute children, I don't expect anyone who was considering block Threads turning back on that, I like the idea but God is the Fediverse full of retards, its like a GMod DarkRP server only with way more dumb communists.
1
Of course Stallman and the FSF religion screwing with people again, who would've guessed...
1
@diadetediotedio6918 "If you say that you despise language, in that sense nothing would satisfy you other than her contempt for language." And pray tell where you're justified in assuming that? I never once said this and there is no possible manner to support this. Perhaps if you read what I have written on the subject you wouldn't have made such an erroneously foolish claim but no you don't care for reasonableness, you have to attack me instead. This is quite a personal attack and its incredibly insulting to say the least. Its also quite the accusation, so where is your proof? "You simply want to hear the flaws you want to hear." This is what I am referring to when I call Rust fanatics childish, you don't care about my position, you just want to defend a religion with your irrational zeal, I am totally fine with the existence of Rust but you don't care because you have to attack anyone who doesn't agree with you, I am not okay when its community does this type of crap over and over and over again. Says something about the Rust community more then it ever does about me. I am also not okay when every language duplicates and mimics Rust without question, it puts into question what the point of another language even is. Do you even know what I have said about the language, do you even know what my position specifically is? I doubt so given how you just accused me that I must think everyone share my exact perspective. Did you ever stop to consider some languages for different purposes are also in use by different people perhaps? Did you ever stop to think I don't consider Rust for me and won't use it for that reason? The arrogance for one to be so insulting when you don't even know my position is incredible.
1
@diadetediotedio6918 "I think you're hyper-reacting to something that just underlined the things you said." Claim without proof and it lacks reason. It also is an ad hominem fallacy. "See, it's a principle of rationality that you should keep your biases away from your concrete judgments" No one can do this and neither should they try, reality, reason, truth, and facts are all inherently biased and to believe anyone or anything is capable of being without bias is also an invalid perspective. There is nothing that informs this belief except ignorance or arrogance and you can't even prove it true, in fact its easier to prove that everything is inherently and necessarily biased then it is to prove otherwise. For otherwise there would be distinguishing nor classifying factors behind anything. Also this is still not an argument. "in that sense I manage not to hate or love any language and still recognize its strengths and weaknesses." If you believe that my hatred of a language informs that I believe that the language must not exist or be used by anyone instead suggests delusion and arrogance. You clearly didn't bother to read what I say, you read what you want out of what I say and ignore what I actually have said. You care nothing for my position, you just want to put me down for why else would you raise yourself to a superior position and present no reason? Why are you even speaking in regards to opinion when I have explicitly stated that my opinion is not what's informing my opposition to the Rust community. You have still yet to even speak about that refuse to even address what I've said. You don't get to make claims of my character and claim yourself superior. That is inherently self-righteousness, a biased position. You also have not given one good reason not to have a negative disposition towards a tool that you find innately and inherently flawed and problematic most especially for the purpose it claims to be for. My position of disposition behind the language is not informed either by opinion but thing is I never presented it because I did not find it relevant. Why then however do you assume you know what I have said when I have never spoken it to you? You don't get to make those assumptions and then also assume you are right by a strawman fallacy? "I don't even consider myself a "Rust programmer", nor a member of the "Rust community", but look at how you've acted, in complete dismay, based on your assumptions." You attacked and assumed of me and then made ad hominems character attacks and strawman fallacies for positions I never presented, ignoring what I have said to support a position that was never argued in regards to. I have a disposition towards the language, nothing about that speaks to me being irrational, I never even presented you a reason for issues and neither have you addressed them, I have been fairly vague and/or light in all my criticisms regarding Rust because they were not the core of my issue regarding the Rust community, who has done just the same thing you just did. I don't care about your opinion of me and I don't care about your fallacies regarding me. Neither do I care for my own opinions, I care for the facts and truth for which you presented none of and merely assumed upon me for. "You basically called an experienced driver programmer a fanatic" You're the one who acted upon me, I will call those who act in a manner not by reason what they are according to their act, you didn't use a well reasoned argument to refute me, you made assumptions of me, and then used that you make yourself look better. You have presented yourself a fanatic and thus were referred to by what you have done. Experience does not exclude fanaticism, why you act like they're mutually exclusive either speaks to lack of understanding or delusion. In either case it does not speak well of what you've done. I don't care for your character but your behavior I will criticize, never once have I said something that isn't the result of your behavior, act better and I won't say anything regarding behavior, act poorly and I will criticize, its quite a simple metric. "and you said you would disregard her opinion if she recognized the "flaws"." First off, sounds like a typo, I said I would disregard her opinion regarding Rust if she would not recognize the flaws. How does that say that I hate the language to the degree you accuse me of? I hate the language informed by its flaws but if one doesn't recognize flaws in a language how then can they be trusted to be truthful, honest, and worth listening to? If one says C is the best thing ever and it has no flaws, would you suggest that I should consider their opinions more then those who see the flaws? For this is what I say of Rust folks, but for them they do this with Rust. When I speak of Rust flaws, they accuse me of things and attack my character and refuse to acknowledge what I say. Closest someone ever came was saying "yes but" which isn't an acknowledgement but a defensive mechanism. Now if someone does this, why then should I regard them? Do you believe that I like and use C and C++ because I think they have no flaws? Do you truly think I don't recognize that Rust solves some of them even? If you believe that of me then I must call you delusional, in the least your behavior makes that implication of how you think of me which itself is both irrationally and was never stated. Do you believe that I am unaware of C memory management being a pain that assists the creation of bugs? If no then why have you accused me of all these things that I haven't said nor have I made a support of? The only reasonable expectation of your position is that you do believe that I think such a way but as to why I don't know and truthfully I don't care. "And finally, you said you despise language." I also despise murder and murderers, do you suggest I should have no reasonable argument towards murder then? Would you make the argument that only people who care nothing for murder speak regarding murder? If the answer is no you have refuted your own argument as rational argumentation does not in essence require lack of a disposition, there is no reason to assume this except to attack someone's character and disregard their argument. In essence it is a deflection tactic and always an ad hominem fallacy. "Do you want people to get what you say if you say it in such an emotionally unstable way?" Foremost I don't care about what people do, think, or believe, most especially about me. I don't matter and nothing about me should matter. If I do matter then you have lost the plot and can't sustain an argument in the first place. Regard for character over argument means the opposing argument should not be considered because it inherently can not be a valid argument. (that does not mean the argument is incorrect or correct on either side, but the side that doesn't use a fallacy is more trustworthy by inherent position of the lack of a fallacy until presented with a proper refutation) And emotionally unstable how? If someone refuses flaws to something that must inherently have flaws, their position is inherently invalid enough to put anything they say into question. That's not an unstable position by any regard, it is entirely rational to ignore a position not informed by truth but by blindness if one does not keep themselves under reasonable expectation of the world.
1
@mmstick "Rust is in an all new class of its own, and we have yet to see any projects seriously challenging it." It is this exact mentality why I do not consider the perspective of fanatics. "Go ahead and name a language that has all of" Why should I? This is a deflection, just because a language would have any features does not mean its a good language, a language is not a pure sum of its features and to think otherwise is say the least foolishness. You can list language features all you want, there are plenty of languages that share and implement many, most, if not all of these features in some manner, and to claim that Rust is so great because it has these features, ignoring the languages that do or may also have them by literally disregarding the capacity to be wrong religiously so, and yet it lacks many other very "vital" features to some degree or another, ("vital" I may add that neither would I consider vital but what others may call vital) not that most of these are specifically vital even for its objective, in the best of cases many of these are conveniences and nowhere near what makes even a decent language, some of them I would even argue detract from the language. For example, functional and imperative programming are no more special then any other paradigm, in fact I would suggest they are often push developers into a negative space as they override the mechanics of the language to force one singular paradigm of solutions, which Rust most certainly does, no doubt in part thanks to such behaviors. (and no that is not me saying I despise such, it is me saying they are at best serve a limited purpose that limits both use and capacity, often I would say for little gain from a programming perspective, they're nice optional features, they're terrible required features and they often uselessly add development oversights and undue complexity) It is the sign of a fool that believes he is right by answering an address of "nothing compares" as if that's actually true. You don't know every language and neither do you know even a subset of a modicum of languages that service the same purpose as Rust, let alone C. Only a foolish argument will stand on a blanket and absolute claim as "nothing compares, its in completely different class compared to the others". And which yes, C will by necessity have more general use then Rust because Rust exclusively focuses on one subset of use cases regarding C to the exclusion of other purposes, that's how tradeoffs must reasonably and rationally work, and every language feature you add increases your tradeoffs and thus your specialization. For every feature you add, complexity is increased, and for each bit of complexity not only is there more to go wrong, but there is more to learn and understand, and if those underpinning systems, which Rust has a lot of, are not so well understood, there will still be more bugs introduced by developers and more non-solvable problems for which developers will have to deal with. I didn't even need to argue anything about what you said for you made a blanket statement, and I have no reason to consider your arguments when you don't make a single one. Instead of arguing against what I have said, you go right into defensive child mode just short of explicitly stating "its better" as though that justifies the acts and the behaviors of developers of Rust and their willingness to completely disregard any criticism of the language. If one can not recognize any flaws in a system, they do not love it, they idolize it, love is not blind, for love seeks for truth, it is idolatry and blind worship for which one will refuse to acknowledge flaws and attack the character of its opposition. This is why I call it a religion. Can't even stand to hear someone telling you it has flaws, gotta defend your zealousness with childish intent.
1
@mmstick "didn't even bother to answer my original request." Because its a diversion. I care not to partake in a diversion from the point. "Deflecting is not a mature way to have a discussion." I did not deflect because I'm staying on point, you're the one committing to a red herring fallacy, what value to the discussion does bringing the languages I speak of provide? It does not strengthen my argument nor would it refute my argument to be absent, hence why I only made mention of their existence, for they be merely a reference, not a point in of itself, the existence of the language is completely circumstantial to my point, the specifics on that is completely irrelevant. You tunneled onto something you so thought you could assault in complete disregard to what was actually said, that itself is immature.
1
Would totally use it if I ever had a reason to go to such antiquated boomer crapsites that don't give you anything but dumb ideas.
1
If freedesktop was more "authoritative" they probably wouldn't ever have been a de facto standard, had they not existed it would also otherwise be way worse, so I say they reside in the perfect position for their purpose, honestly better then a lot of the standards consortiums.
1
@BrodieRobertson That's an excuse more than anything, there is no risk and doing it would not actually complicate the build process anymore, I honestly refuse to believe that the financial cost is all that relevant as its so small if it exists at all. An overwhelming majority of Proton users will never report issues to the developers so there is no reason not to make Proton easier.
1
The community is also toxic as hell and that's what really makes me wish Rust wouldn't get into the Kernel.
1
@billeterk My issue is that if you critique Rust at all, like I've critiqued the build system and syntax quite deliberately and specifically a good few times now, they neither will ever accept it nor refute it reasonably, every time I've done it I was insulted and attacked for it without any refutation to what I actually said. I've been accused of not knowing anything, of being ignorant, and told I'm wrong and should be ignored without a refutation. It is for this reason more then any other I hate the Rust community. I don't like Rust and would never intend to use it, I do hate both its build system and syntax, but I would never have been so angrily opposed to it if not for this toxic fanaticism I've always experienced regarding it. And just to clarify, I have not ever gone out of my way to make these criticisms, I've made those comments in places where ever an independent topic of Rust came up, I never intentionally antagonized the community but every time I would end up attacked by Rust folks anyway, it is for this reason I see the Rust community as childish and full of children who shouldn't be left near Kernel development, partly out of spite, but only that for some reason this trendy new language attracts the exact people I don't want to see developing a kernel driver.
1
Red Hat shouldn't have to go through a bunch of lawsuits to stop being racist.
1
Not even EAC's fault here since it wasn't specifically deprecated and wasn't in the patch notes, so there was literally no way to know this was gonna happen, and the subject is already terribly documented.
1
Every release is obsolete, its only not obsolete when its experimental.
1
@TheKeule33 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCx_G_R0UmQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeXaYR4ed9c
1
@D7UN4Channel Its both, Switzerland regulates and can subpoena them and the US strong-arms Switzerland to make them do it when the US wants.
1
This dude sounds like he's drinking the kool-aid of woke ideology, like Stallman is his own brand of whatever, (I don't want him gone though) but oh god if we're gonna go with the affirmative action bullcrap, I would goddman hope for the FSF to burn to the ground and die, I've seen this with DnD, Gaming, Anime Dubs, and Hollywood, we've already witnessed a few stupid cases of wokeness infecting FOSS projects, they've already tried to step into the Linux project and they already got to the Rust Foundation, (I may have always hated Rust, but I was at least willing to consider it before that) I get enough of this shit from corporations shoving it down my throat, for God's sake, keep this crap out, woke ideology needs to be gatekeeped out of everywhere and everyone who goes in with woke ideology needs to be shamed out of business, I'm sick and tired of this parasite robbing everything that's fun or good. Even if I agree with elements of a goal I will not let my enemy win just to spite and shame him. Whether I agree or not has already been lost, I will not give anyone with this mentality an inch, I will never compromise with them, I don't respect them.
1
I keep hearing about how the main dev for app image is quite a fool, sounds like a major pain in the ass to work with.
1
@transcendtient cultist
1
@mmstick Keep whining, I really don't care, you just keep proving my disposition for the Rust community.
1
@mmstick cool cool
1
@tinrab I have numerous criticisms of Rust as a language and infrastructure that absolutely makes it a failure of a language, like for example the lack of ABI stability and the inability to support shared linkage, in fact you can't distribute Rust programs as linkable libraries at all because of that ABI stability problem, or how Cargo is a requirement to use Rust, or how the borrow checker syntax is absolutely trash, or how postfix type declarations ar a dumb design. I could go on and on about how Rust is not actually superior in all sorts of ways, but I can bet you that you won't admit to a single of these problems. If you can't see any of those as problems, then you're the cultists, as a C/C++ developer these are only some of the many reasons I can't use Rust at all, so to tout it as superior is a completely joke. The only reason anyone touts Rust even as superior is mostly because of the borrow checker anyway but a C-based language has already been proven to be able to support a borrow checker (look up the Circle Compiler) and C++ has a proposal to add one.
1
@tinrab I have numerous criticisms of Rust as a language and infrastructure that absolutely makes it a failure of a language, like for example the lack of ABI stability and the inability to support shared linkage, in fact you can't distribute Rust programs as linkable libraries at all because of that ABI stability problem, (as in any linkable libraries within Rust, you can load them from C/C++ because it doesn't rely upon the Rust stdlib and vice versa, but that's not useful for a new language, also its an open and so far reported by the devs as an impossible problem to solve) or how Cargo is a requirement to use Rust, or how the borrow checker syntax is absolutely trash, or how postfix type declarations ar a dumb design. I could go on and on about how Rust is not actually superior in all sorts of ways, but I can bet you that you won't admit to a single of these problems. If you can't see any of those as problems, then you're the cultists, as a C/C++ developer these are only some of the many reasons I can't use Rust at all, so to tout it as superior is a completely joke. The Circle Compiler has already proven C++ can support a borrow checker and there is already a proposal to add it to C++.
1
@tinrab I have numerous criticisms of Rust as a language and infrastructure that absolutely makes it a failure of a language, like for example the lack of ABI stability and the inability to support shared linkage, in fact you can't distribute Rust programs as linkable libraries at all because of that ABI stability problem, (as in any linkable libraries within Rust, you can load them from C/C++ because it doesn't rely upon the Rust stdlib and vice versa) or how Cargo is a requirement to use Rust, or how the borrow checker syntax is absolutely trash, or how postfix type declarations ar a dumb design. I could go on and on about how Rust is not actually superior in all sorts of ways, but I can bet you that you won't admit to a single of these problems. If you can't see any of those as problems, then you're the cultists, as a C/C++ developer these are only some of the many reasons I can't use Rust at all, so to tout it as superior is a completely joke. The Circle Compiler has already proven C++ can support a borrow checker and there is already a proposal to add it to C++.
1
@Henrik0x7F Shared linkage is the basis for almost everything on Unix systems, and is essential to network infrastructure, both Linux and BSD rely on it so heavily that not supporting it is tantamount to abandoning support for both outright. (all common Unix package managers rely on dynamic linkage) And that aside every major C++ compiler is ABI compatible, GCC and Clang have interoperable ABI (I use both shared and static linked libraries with different build options between Clang and GCC and experienced no problems) and MSVC can do so if you disable the non-standard debug behavior and structured exceptions. (and tbf the non-standard debug behavior is mostly a library problem which if you ran in Clang, is still ABI compatible)
1
@mmstick If you are incapable of understanding necessities for my work, there is no reason to bother with you, Rust will not work for my job, it cannot replace C/C++ for it, and it simply never will, and its not the only case. Whinge and whine all you want, I don't care, if you don't have ears to hear, I'm not giving them to you.
1
@mmstick C++ doesn't rely on disabling its C name mangling to perform dynamic linkage, its inherently supported at all times. I literally told you reasons I can't use it, you don't care about those reasons, cool cool, I do, you will never be able to get me onboard when it literally can't do the things I need, I don't care if it works for you, go use it if you want, I really do not care at all, you don't get to claim it works as a C/C++ replacement when it can't do even such basic stuff that's integral to the use cases of C/C++ still. The fact you take everything I say as an attack instead of criticism is your fault not mine.
1
@Henrik0x7F But its a legal one, getting potentially sued by the FSF is not something I want to go through.
1
@mmstick No it doesn't, C++ supports dynamic linkage regardless of compiler versions, I can link a GCC 7 compiled library against a Clang 17 compiled project and vice versa. (done this plenty of times, never had an issue) Even for MSVC, if I disable the annoying non-standard debug features, I can do the same even from mingw or clang-cl. (MSVC is annoying because it violates the standard, it is still able to do it, its mostly a library issue, if your mingw pulls from the same library as MSVC, or is freestanding it does pretty much work) So long as it compiles on the same platform, conflicts just come down to referencing the wrong or different libraries. You clearly don't have much if even any experience in C++. Have you actually ever even used it? Also doesn't apply at all to C.
1
I don't get why Python3 had to change the Python2 APIs honestly, it was stupid to change both APIs and the language at the same time, I have never heard of a single language since the 90s aside from Python doing something stupid like this. If you want to update a language, update the language without other massive breaking changes, first off do what C++ did, deprecate that functionality in a way that minimize harm for existing projects, (then wait for use to become minimal) don't create breaking changes in the standard library, and only do it with a new version of each package module for that part of the standard library. (yes C++ didn't do that last one but only because the standard library is only one package that can't be segregated and doesn't yet have modules)
1
@goawqebt6931 You can't play most multiplayer games at all on Linux, so long as they have anti-cheat or non-Steam DRM.
1
@gusvanwes6192 Call it whatever you want, I don't care, the facts are true, I've experienced enough of the cultists, you can lie all you want, I don't care, doesn't refute the facts. I know all sorts of programming languages, I do know a bit of Rust, and hate the language as a result, but doesn't matter, all because I despise the Rust community for their harassment of anyone who doesn't agree with them, you accuse me of being a cultist, its not like I can't recognize the issues with C and C++ and recite them routinely for you, or that I could perhaps recognize that Rust has good ideas done poorly, no it must not be based on truth, but purely based on some random's delusions in his head that I hate and am part of a cult, it couldn't be that what I said about Rust fanbois is true.
1
@mmstick "No one is pushing you to do anything." Then you have no experience in software development. "You are simply making up excuses to be part of a hateful bandwagon of people who are afraid of Rust." There's literally no reason to be afraid of Rust, there are things it can't do compared to C/C++ and it will simply fail to replace either even just off those reasons alone, (there are other reasons too, but why bother with you) you claiming that those cases don't matter is pure ignorance, I need them for my work, so none of my work and associates are even able to use it even if we wanted to. My disposition for the language is completely academic and logistical, the community is its own realm of nasty bigots. "Your choice of language speaks for itself. I know what corner of the Internet you hang out on." And as you just demonstrated, outright bigotry. I literally don't care what language you use, I don't care what choices you make, use Rust if you want, just don't tell me to use it when I neither can nor want to. I literally could not care less of anything in regards to Rust, I actually happen to find some of its ideas neat and useful, but that doesn't excuse all the other crap I have to deal with because it merely exists. Rust developers are never willing to hear any criticism and attack literally everyone that points them out. I could name for you a million C/C++ problems, I don't believe the language is perfect, but it is still better then the alternatives that exist. The only potential replacement for C is C3 which is still in alpha.
1
@mmstick "No one is pushing you to do anything." Then you have no experience in software development. "You are simply making up excuses to be part of a hateful bandwagon of people who are afraid of Rust." There's literally no reason to be afraid of Rust, there are things it can't do compared to C/C++ and it will simply fail to replace either even just off those reasons alone, (there are other reasons too, but why bother with you) you claiming that those cases don't matter is pure ignorance, I need them for my work, so none of my work and associates are even able to use it even if we wanted to. My disposition for the language is completely academic and logistical, the community is its own realm of nasty bigots. "Your choice of language speaks for itself. I know what corner of the Internet you hang out on." And as you just demonstrated, outright bigotry. I literally don't care what language you use, I don't care what choices you make, use Rust if you want, just don't tell me to use it when I neither can nor want to. I literally could not care less of anything in regards to Rust, I actually happen to find some of its ideas neat and useful, but that doesn't excuse all the other crap I have to deal with because it merely exists. Rust developers are never willing to hear any criticism and attack literally everyone that points them out. I could name for you a million C/C++ problems, I don't believe the language is perfect.
1
@mmstick Then you have no experience in software development. "You are simply making up excuses to be part of a hateful bandwagon of people who are afraid of Rust." There's literally no reason to be afraid of Rust, there are things it can't do compared to C/C++ and it will simply fail to replace either even just off those reasons alone, you claiming that those cases don't matter is pure ignorance, I need them for my work, so none of my work nor associates are even able to use it even if we wanted to. My disposition for the language is completely academic and logistical, the community is its own realm of nasty bigots. "Your choice of language speaks for itself. I know what corner of the Internet you hang out on." And as you just demonstrated, bigotry. I literally don't care what language you use, I don't care what choices you make, use Rust if you want, just don't tell me to use it when I neither can nor want to. I literally could not care less of anything in regards to Rust, I actually happen to find some of its ideas neat and useful, but that doesn't excuse all the other crap I have to deal with because it merely exists. Rust developers are never willing to hear any criticism and attack literally everyone that points them out. I could name for you a million C/C++ problems, neither of them are perfect.
1
@mmstick Then you have no experience in software development. There's literally no reason to be afraid of Rust, there are things it can't do compared to C/C++ and it will simply fail to replace either even just off those reasons alone, you claiming that those cases don't matter is pure ignorance, I need them for my work. My disposition for the language is completely academic and logistical, the community is full of bigots. "Your choice of language speaks for itself. I know what corner of the Internet you hang out on." And as you just demonstrated, bigotry. I literally don't care, I don't care what choices you make, use Rust or don't, just don't tell me to use it when I neither can nor want to. I literally could not care less of anything in regards to Rust, I happen to find some of its ideas neat and useful, but that doesn't excuse all the other stuff because it merely exists. Rust developers are never willing to hear any criticism. I could name for you a million C/C++ problems, neither of them are perfect.
1
@phonewithoutquestion80 Not the first time I've seen this behavior from the Rust community unfortunately, what this guy has called me is light compared to some of the horrific things they've said of me when I simply said I won't or can't use it, its these type of folks that make some of us so frustrated with Rust's mere existence, I really wish trend people would have no access to the internet, maybe then I could simply not care about Rust.
1
@dirlrido2522 One dude keeps responding back to me bashing me for making a milquetoast criticism of Rust, he didn't even bother to actually respond to the comment on this thread in the first place, I'm only in two comment threads on this video, and one of them is my own puny comment, and its the same guy responding to me in both threads most of the time, I only respond when I get the notification for someone whose tagging me. And I only posted because what I said was simple fact, I've never heard worse insults in software development then from Rust nuts, and just because you only have positive things to say does not inherently mean your position is valid, nobody even bothers to address the KDE side of this post because Rust fans are obsessed. No one bother to notice I said literally the same thing about the KDE antis here, I associated them together in this case. I also made a point that many complaints regarding Gnome that isn't on its management tend to be overblown, this comment was about more then just Rust. Also how am I bashing random users? They all responded to me by calling me a cultist first, I only called those specific people cultists afterwards. I don't see how having a problem with Rust cultism is bashing random users.
1
@dirlrido2522 I literally am only in two threads here, I literally haven't joined any others here, and I only posted this comment and posted one comment responding to someone complaining about C elitism where all I said was I've seen more vitriol from Rust fanbois. That was it, literally everything else since has been me responding to people tagging me, often when they first called me names, like the dude who randomly joined this thread, I attacked literally no one, I aggressed no one, I didn't attack Rust users in general, I didn't even particularly attack Rust. (even if you consider the criticisms I did make an attack on Rust, I didn't even say anything about them until after people insisted that I was a C cultist, in which Rust became the core topic) How am I being the aggressor? I didn't even start calling anyone outright Rust cultists until after I was called a C cultist. And of the people who didn't attack me, I haven't said anything negative to them at all despite them pointing out something related to Rust. I even openly stated I think some of the ideas of Rust are neat but that I despise the implementation. Am I not allowed to post comments on Youtube that just happen to include my experiences of the Rust nuts? This comment wasn't even focused on Rust, it was the Rust nut that turned it into that.
1
Justifying things by DRM or anti-cheat is honestly extremely stupid when they aren't the core reason things wouldn't be put on Linux. Corporate cucks really need to learn honesty and transparency goes a lot further then being a sniveling lying cuck. As an aside anti-cheat doesn't need to be intrusive or ring 0, its a brute force tactic so more reasonable or smarter solutions don't have to be considered cause a lot of people stupidly think clever solutions cost more money even though that too is a stupid conclusion. Valve's anti-cheat is one of several manners that should be used to deal with hacks and cheats, most of would be behaviors and management solutions though.
1
@ps5hasnogames55 I severely doubt its Brodie doing it, you have been excessively toxic given how you speak so its probably Youtube smashing you for your attitude. Besides you've been factually, technically, and otherwise objectively wrong with all your reasoning and your argumentation stands on literal falsities and fallacies, it in the least deserves to be deleted by you for both how rude it is and for how ignorant it is. You don't even seem to remotely understand the concept of bloat and don't seem to understand even a minute detail of software development. You don't even have the state of mind to consider the impact of what you've said because by extraction you will inevitable suffer at the hands of your exact philosophy because there will always be a day where you must rely on software that's operating on what you called "bloat" when it does not remotely impact desktop users negatively at goddamn all. You likely already have, it is after all the reason Linux is so massively unstable, if you've been using Linux for even just 4 years you should've already experienced this pain on anything that isn't Debian.
1
And this is why chrome is trash, not the first time they killed something everyone wanted because of corporate bullcrap, they do it all the time and care nothing for the consumers, Firefox has its stupid problems, but God least they actually act like a FOSS project.
1
@felipec When he's referring to boomer devs, he's probably referring to the folks that specifically did this, allowed this, or justify this after the fact, anyone who promotes not breaking userspace is likely exempt from being referred to as a boomer dev here.
1
@felipec "they don't understand that the purpose of software is to be useful to the users." This is a common reference of boomer philosophy, not understanding purpose is often the reference for boomer identification, even if you are actually a boomer, if you don't adhere to that issue you're not gonna be called a boomer colloquially.
1
When you sit on your thumbs all day, the only choice you have is killing everyone's ability to understand your UI...again.
1
Gnome sometimes really is just a cult. I swear 60% of the problems of Wayland is simply because of Gnome.
1
The cost of freedom has always been an inability to stop many forms of evil, I am completely fine with this, its not the job of the government to stop evil anyway, only to uphold individual rights.
1
gnome is the definition of the annoying special snowflake pain in the ass.
1
@terrydaktyllus1320 There's a lot of things that are broken with xorg, just because you don't feel a UX break doesn't mean it isn't broke, we don't define broken by what the user of the software feels is broken.
1
I'll never get the desire to "stable release" alpha and beta functionality.
1
@zxq_5 ABI stability, proper support for shared libraries, dynamic linkage, and static linkage that doesn't routinely break. There is no feasible reality for which any language should sacrifice ABI stability if its supposed to be stable, glibc causes enough issues in userspace when it breaks it, Linus gets routinely mad at them for this, (and if Rust is adopted, he'll be doubly mad at the Rust standard library because its even worse) the chaos of having an entire language library that is freestanding (which Rust also does not work with) which breaks ABI is an insurmountable problem. Just because we have a new fancy language does not mean we get to ignore the rest of software needs. There is never a justification to break ABI at any level of the standard library, any standard that doesn't comply with this will be worse then the C++ standard any serious software project.
1
Gnome is dumb anyway.
1
To be honest, a distro is only a single distro until its installed on your computer, then its a totally new distro, 95% of a distro's distinction is the install script and package distribution host, and majority of those still at some point will or can redirect to the parent distro's package distribution, (Mint, Ubuntu, Manjaro) dumb thing is when a distro makes its own custom install systems that make it different in slight ways, like how Manjaro screws with all the popular packages on Arch for no reason which causes install breaks, even had programs utterly crash because I used the Manjaro packages, like what is the point of overriding the packages that already exist, could just addon to the package in the main package distribution host anyway.
1
@poly9306 And how are those behaviors being introduced into the spec? Why does everyone have their own non-spec conforming implementation?
1
I'm excited to know the next list of disappointing things our favorite distro punching bag Manjaro is gonna screw its consumers over with again.
1
Probably for a a goop many more years tbh, Wayland will take a lot longer then pipewire to functionally replace X11.
1
Truthfully I think Linus is a fool, my biggest issue with him is that all tools must be all or nothing, his software perspectives have a lot of stupid presumptions, like his perspective on C++ in the kernel was absolutely dumb, yes sure C++ exceptions and RTTI is a pain, there are definitely annoyances with C++03 and before, but you can disable both on every compiler, its an unfortunate requirement of the standard that both be supported (making them optional extensions would be a lot better) and you can use C++ without the standard library if necessary, plenty of FOSS projects already do, the only really big backing behind Linus having beef against C++ is because he's a C fanatic and was frustrated with C++03. (even though it was still better then C) RAII and simple span-like types were completely feasible even going back to C++98, and it would've saved a lot of headaches in the Linux kernel. C is a worse language then C++, Linus has never once made a valid complaint of C++ and I would love to say this to his face and call him out for being an idiot. Literally everything that can be written in C and be written in C++ almost exactly, you can even selectively disable name mangling in C++ when you need a C API, you don't need to use anything that bloats your compilation nor your binaries if you disable RTTI and exceptions.
1
@Poldovico Yeah but the big issue is that nobody questioned the binary files being included in the build process (regardless of the fact they were test files) even just for testing purposes, had that not been accepted, it wouldn't have been possible for that backdoor to even be made, any other backdoor would've required being written in the source code or somehow constructed completely from the build system, something that is more able to be validated by code review. (and at that point it often becomes impossible to distinguish between bugged code and malicious code)
1
@necoji4910 Okay cool, if you can't read what I wrote, there is no point dealing with you, this is a Youtube comment section not a bachelor thesis. Nobody cares about run on sentences.
1
@CamaradaArdi Its not entirely, its better, but it definitely still takes longer then not having one at all.
1
librewolf masterrace
1
Especially when the only people that will care about FUTO would've been mostly the fans of the OSI definition of open source, but by attacking the OSI definition and trying to make it more inclusive they are shooting themselves in the foot ensuring nobody will care about FUTO.
1
Honestly probably better then bricking your system every other week when you need to use the AUR Manjaro, but you'll never have the AUR packages then, which sucks for all but the most basic of cases.
1
Some of these issues are functionally fabricated for twitter, like performance has nothing to do with Elon and the only way that would be relevant is if one of the other scenarios happens first, (especially moot since Elon was trying to fix long standing issues at twitter related to this and it didn't kill the platform) making it a moot point anyway since if one of the other scenarios that crashes the network or infrastructure happens, a slow app is the least of your damn problems, and as for moderation tools, those still exist regardless of the moderation team, and has nothing to do with the copyright system because it was automated anyway, they just broke the copyright detection. And there are plenty of things he did not mention that don't apply to twitter in a danger scenario despite applying to a tech conglomerate.
1