• IT reconversions are bullshit and dangerous to the industry. Everyone and their grandma are becoming “programmers”. We’re in the “fuck around” phase, the “find out” will be explosive. Companies are inundating themselves with these “reconverted” juniors and doing soft-layoffs to seniors…

• crypto, Blockchain and AI are just bs to make a quick buck out of investors. They are truly disastrous to the environment

• If you use chatgpt et al. I’ll look down on you from a technical competence level

• marketing and middle management are mostly useless. A good, and small, sales+marketing team is very effective but the moment they start growing they start to degenerate pretty fast into BS world and imposing company culture

Console? Absolutely, but not PC. You’d remove all the versatility of owning a pc

No we don’t. Who needs that? That’s what consoles are for. Every time I want to play on my computer I would need to dual boot and change to the OS? That’s nonsense

Game Devs and device driver Devs need to get their shit together and fix things.

And we all know Arch isn’t a distro right?

Their whole aesthetics is super cringe

Meh I dislike Musk as well but I don’t let that cloud my judgement of his companies or science/engineering in general.

Right because innovation materializes itself when we want … We just flicked our fingers and airplane, cellphone and others just appeared.

Who are you to tell what we should or should not pursue?

Isn’t there space for both? Why not try multiple avenues? Why have this negative view on everything? Wouldn’t you say the airplane and the car have tremendously improved humanity, even with all its downsides? Or the cellphone?

I bet at the time of their inventions you would be opposing it because “billionaires are bad and this industry is going to explore the working class”. Guess what? Yes billionaires are bad and explore people and you (all of us) should be fighting against that, not against scientific and engineering inovation.

You seem to be letting your hatred for Musk confuse you about space exploration. NASA and other governmental agencies do very important work when it comes to space exploration

Is this sub-populated mostly by Facebook people? Some of the answers really feel like it.

I see your point, but in this case I feel OP was misinterpreting the situation

But that’s the thing where you are wrong. They clearly state they don’t want C developers to learn Rust. In the particular video posted he was saying “I want you to explain to me how this particular API works so that I can do it”

The concerns about who fixes what on a merge when the C code breaks Rust code are valid, but that’s easily fixed by gathering with the Rust developers, explaining the changes and letting them fix it.

Sure and place neovim there

Can you point out where I said that?

The issue is not agreeing, but behaving like an immature prick when arguing

Indeed :)

Isn’t Linux still Linux even though probably a lot of the original code is gone? Why would slowly rewriting it whole, or just parts, in Rust make it stop being Linux?

I agree with your views. But I have to give praise to Linus for bringing Rust into the kernel.

Yes I agree but the solution for a project so big and critical is not to fork. How do you maintain all of it while at the same time adding support to Rust?

The difference is that now you have a scope of where the memory unsafe code might be(unsafe keyword) and you look there instead of all the C code.

This is such a dumb take. For as much as I’d like to have a safer language in the kernel you need the current developers, the “big heads” at least because they have a lot of niche knowledge about their domains and how they implementation works (regardless of language) People shouldn’t take shit like this from the ext4 developer, but it doesn’t mean we should start vilifying all of them.

This guy’s concerns are real and valid but were expressed with the maturity of a lunatic child, but they are not all like this.

Better in what ways? Rust’s strong points are not to just make a program more stable, but more secure from a memory standpoint and I don’t think Linux keeps improving on that

Well I have my Linux partition encrypted with a unique password

They are still different brands with different features and price points. The fact that a faulty part was detected on Bentley doesn’t 100% mean a Seat will have the same issues

Yes we need variety. Imagine if all cars were from the same brand …

It was my college experience. Didn’t use anything else. No issues at all

What would be the advantages of using this over, say i3? (Does it summarize to X vs Wayland)

Can you point out exactly what is misrepresented and lies?

You keep coming up with insults or inflamatory comments instead of answering the points, when I’m just trying to have a discussion of ideas. I don’t understand why I am being unhinged when I even agreed with you partially.

I’m not a Rust programmer, I just play occasionally with it on pet projects. The languages I’m most experienced in are C++ and then C, I have no “horse in the race” of Rust, and I don’t see c/c++ going away anytime soon, I just see what the language improves on them

You are not very consistent, first you imply that not “being a shitty programmer” is the fix for security issues in C. And then you say that any programmer can and will make mistakes…

Again you refuse to see my argument: yes I agree that viewing Rust, or any other language, as being a panaceia is wrong and following the hype. But Rust is provably better than C w.r.t to memory safety issues because it, provably, finds memory issues during compile time. I’m not discussing other types of security issues.

Yes C needs all that “freedom” with memory due to its low level use cases, but Rust is proving that it can also cover those cases (with the unsafe keyword) and cover the opposite cases where you want more strict memory usage and safety, so much so that you see now operating systems and firmware being developed in it. I won’t argue and compare performance as I don’t know enough.

You could argue that Rust by providing the “unsafe”, keyword can and will have memory issues, but IMO the fact that you need to enclose unsafe operations in a scope allows for more focused reviewing and auditing

Ahah, I’m pretty sure many of the programmers on Linux et al, that worked on code with CVEs are still better programmers than you will ever be. The fact is that a lot of projects are just complex and they are hard to reason about on languages like C.

But I guess you know that. Keep trolling.

You’re just partially correct.

With Rust you get compile time guarantees that your code doesn’t have a specific class of vulnerabilities. Can you do that with C?

Too many windows

endeavourOs from arch by being less opinionated and giving away the awful colour theme

I don’t have an opinion on the whole systemd debate but are you going to expand on what you’re meaning, or will just keep spewing bs bullet points? Specially n4, wtf do you mean by that?

Not sure about KDE. On i3 they have it customized a lot and there’s some things I don’t like: when opening a terminal it will always open in a workspace assigned, by them, for terminals. The same with file manager windows, browsers, et al. I find it to be extremely irritating

EndeavourOS is way too opinionated on i3 for my liking, and the theme is not great. Still it is very stable and offers a reasonable out of the box arch experience.

If you choose

That’s the key. A beginner will know very few things about that and giving him options will confuse them

imho Debian is far from beginner friendly. They will end up with a laptop without WiFi.

The EFI binary is signed by a private key, whose public key signature is present in the trusted Signature Database (db).

Shouldn’t it be the opposite? i.e signed by a public key?