Comments by "George Albany" (@Spartan322) on "Brodie Robertson"
channel.
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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