Comments by "George Albany" (@Spartan322) on "Brodie Robertson"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1