[-] duncesplayed@lemmy.one 56 points 9 months ago

You just don't appreciate how prestigious it is to get a degree from Example U.

[-] duncesplayed@lemmy.one 59 points 1 year ago

Holy shit. If I understand correctly, the trains were programmed to use their GPS sensors to detect if they were ever physically moved to an independent repair shop. If they detected that they were at an independent repair shop, they were programmed to lock themselves and give strange and nonsensical error codes. Typing in an unlock code at the engineer's console would allow the trains to start working normally again.

If there were a corporation-sized mirror, I don't know how NEWAG could look at itself in it.

[-] duncesplayed@lemmy.one 52 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm going to reframe the question as "Are computers good for someone tech illiterate?"

I think the answer is "yes, if you have someone that can help you".

The problem with proprietary systems like Windows or OS X is that that "someone" is a large corporation. And, in fairness, they generally do a good job of looking after tech illiterate people. They ensure that their users don't have to worry about how to do updates, or figure out what browser they should be using, or what have you.

But (and it's a big but) they don't actually care about you. Their interest making sure you have a good experience ends at a dollar sign. If they think what's best for you is to show you ads and spy on you, that's what they'll do. And you're in a tricky position with them because you kind of have to trust them.

So with Linux you don't have a corporation looking after you. You do have a community (like this one) to some degree, but there's a limit to how much we can help you. We're not there on your computer with you (thankfully, for your privacy's sake), so to a large degree, you are kind of on your own.

But Linux actually works very well if you have a trusted friend/partner/child/sibling/whoever who can help you out now and then. If you've got someone to help you out with it, Linux can actually work very very well for tech illiterate people. The general experience of browsing around, editing documents, editing photos, etc., works very much the same way as it does on Windows or OS X. You will probably be able to do all that without help.

But you might not know which software is best for editing photos. Or you might need help with a specific task (like getting a printer set up) and having someone to fall back on will give you much better experience.

[-] duncesplayed@lemmy.one 42 points 1 year ago

You're just not cloud-native enough to understand how revolutionary it is to run GNOME on Fedora.

[-] duncesplayed@lemmy.one 50 points 1 year ago

Ironically neither GNU nor Linux has a clipboard (well GNU Emacs probably has like 37 of them for some reason). "Primary selection" (the other clipboard that people don't tell you about) started off on X11, which of course had to implement by XFree86, which became Xorg, and then it copied (ha ha) by other non-X-related software like gpm and toolkits like GTK when using Wayland.

[-] duncesplayed@lemmy.one 51 points 1 year ago

This is the major reason why maintainers matter. Any method of software distribution that removes the maintainer is absolutely guaranteed to have malware. (Or if you don't consider 99% software on Google Play Store the App Store to be "malware", it's at the very least hostile to and exploitative of users). We need package maintainers.

[-] duncesplayed@lemmy.one 48 points 1 year ago

You mean Linux isn't going to have 200% market share one day? Shit, I'm starting to think my calculations may have not been totally serious.

[-] duncesplayed@lemmy.one 103 points 1 year ago

Just an FYI that at this rate it's only going to take another 115 years before Linux has 100% market share.

[-] duncesplayed@lemmy.one 73 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Unfortunate title, but it's a good video and some good thoughts from both Linus and AC.

Interestingly, this video is just 2 years after Linus and Alan Cox had a bit of a blowup that caused AC to resign from the TTY subsystem. And even more interestingly, the blowup was specifically about the very topic they're discussing: not breaking userspace and keeping a consistent user experience. Linus felt AC had broken userspace unnecessarily, was too proud/stubborn to revert the change and save the user experience. AC felt Linus was trivializing how easy "just fix it" was going to be and threw up his hands and resigned.

I was curious if they were still on good terms after that, and it's nice to see that they were. For newcomers to Linux, Alan Cox used to be (in the 1990s) the undisputed Riker to Linus' Picard, the #2 in command, ready to take over all of Linux at a moment's notice. As we got into the 2000s, that changed, and this video (2011) was from the middle of a chaotic time for him. In 2009 he quit Red Hat, then joined Intel 2 years later, then quit shortly after that and has just a few years ago stopped kernel development permanently.

[-] duncesplayed@lemmy.one 41 points 1 year ago

The "tooling" argument is kind of backwards when we're in the kernel. The package manager is not allowed to be used. Even the standard library is not allowed to be used. Writing code free of the standard library is kind of new in the Rust world and getting compiler support for it has been one of the major efforts to get Rust into the kernel. Needless to say tools around no-stdlib isn't as robust as in the user world.

[-] duncesplayed@lemmy.one 46 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Anne Frank advertising baby clothes before discussing the horrors of the Holocaust

Wow, that is amazingly inhumane.

My first thought is they're necessarily making characters who aren't people. A person who has lived through the Holocaust just cannot cheerfully peddle baby clothes. I don't mean that it's physically not possible because she's dead: I mean in terms of the human psyche, a person just flat-out psychologically could not do that. A young boy who succumbed to torture and murder psychology cannot just calmly narrate it.

So obviously, yeah, it's quite a ghoulish and evil thing to take what used to be a person, and a figure who has been studied and mourned because of their personhood, because we can relate to them as a person, and just completely strip them of their personhood and turn them into an inhumane object.

But then that leads to me the question of, who's watching these things, and why? The article says they got quite a lot of views. Is it just for shock value? I don't quite understand.

3
submitted 1 year ago by duncesplayed@lemmy.one to c/linux@lemmy.ml

Thomas Glexiner of Linutronix (now owned by Intel) has posted 58 patches for review into the Linux kernel, but they're only the beginning! Most of the patches are just first steps at doing more major renovations into what he calls "decrapification". He says:

While working on a sane topology evaluation mechanism, which addresses the short-comings of the existing tragedy held together with duct-tape and hay-wire, I ran into the issue that quite some of this tragedy is deeply embedded in the APIC code and uses an impenetrable maze of callbacks which might or might not be correct at the point where the CPUs are registered via MPPARSE or ACPI/MADT.

So I stopped working on the topology stuff and decided to do an overhaul of the APIC code first. Cleaning up old gunk which dates back to the early SMP days, making the CPU registration halfways understandable and then going through all APIC callbacks to figure out what they actually do and whether they are required at all. There is also quite some overhead through the indirect calls and some of them are actually even pointlessly indirected twice. At some point Peter yelled static_call() at me and that's what I finally ended up implementing.

He also, at one point, (half-heartedly) argues for the removal of 32-bit x86 code entirely, arguing that it would simplify APIC code and reduce the chance for introducing bugs in the future:

Talking about those museums pieces and the related historic maze, I really have to bring up the question again, whether we should finally kill support for the museum CPUs and move on.

Ideally we remove 32bit support alltogether. I know the answer... :(

But what I really want to do is to make x86 SMP only. The amount of #ifdeffery and hacks to keep the UP support alive is amazing. And we do this just for the sake that it runs on some 25+ years old hardware for absolutely zero value. It'd be not the first architecture to go SMP=y.

Yes, we "support" Alpha, PARISC, Itanic and other oddballs too, but that's completely different. They are not getting new hardware every other day and the main impact on the kernel as a whole is mostly static. They are sometimes in the way of generalizing things in the core code. Other than that their architecture code is self contained and they can tinker on it as they see fit or let it slowly bitrot like Itanic.

But x86 is (still) alive and being extended and expanded. That means that any refactoring of common infrastructure has to take the broken hardware museum into account. It's doable, but it's not pretty and of really questionable value. I wouldn't mind if there were a bunch of museum attendants actively working on it with taste, but that's obviously wishful thinking. We are even short of people with taste who work on contemporary hardware support...

While I cursed myself at some point during this work for having merged i386/x86_64 back then, I still think that it was the correct decision at that point in time and saved us a lot of trouble. It admittedly added some trouble which we would not have now, but it avoided the insanity of having to maintain two trees with different bugs and "fixes" for the very same problems. TBH quite some of the horrors which I just removed came out of the x86/64 side. The oddballs of i386 early SMP support are a horror on their own of course.

As we made that decision more than 15 years [!] ago, it's about time to make new decisions.

Linus responded to one of the patches, saying "I'm cheering your patch series", but has obviously diplomatically not acknowledged the plea to remove 32-bit support.

1
submitted 1 year ago by duncesplayed@lemmy.one to c/linux@lemmy.ml
20
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by duncesplayed@lemmy.one to c/technology@beehaw.org

Hey all technology people!

Not my community, but I thought I'd advertise someone else's new lemmy community to see if anyone else is interested.

Head over to !bbses@lemmy.dbzer0.com for BBSes and retrocomputing.

view more: next ›

duncesplayed

joined 2 years ago