Cyclohexane @ cyclohexane @lemmy.ml

West Asia - Communist - international politics - anti-imperialism - softwar

---

Read more

Posts

71

Comments

773

Joined

4 yr. ago

Moderating

---

I disagree. Stable, yes. But stable as in unchanging (including bug-for-bug compatibility), which imo is not what most users want. It is what server admins want though. Most newbie desktop users don't realize this about debian based systems, and is one of the sources of trouble they experience.

Debian tries to be secure by back porting security fixes, but they just cannot feasibly do this for all software, and last I checked, there were unaddressed vulnerabilities in debian's version of software that they had not yet backported (and they had been known for a while). I'm happy to look up the source for you if you're interested.

Unlike other commenters, I agree with you. Debian based systems are less suitable for desktop use, and imo is one of the reasons newcomers have frequent issues.

When installing common applications, newcomers tend to follow the windows ways of downloading an installer or a standalone executable from the Internet. They often do not stick with the package manager. This can cause breakage, as debian might expect you to have certain version of programs that are different from what the installer from the Internet expects. A rolling release distro is more likely to have versions that Internet installers expect.

To answer your question, I believe debian based distros are popular for desktop because they were already popular for server use before Linux desktop were significant.

This is not a good argument imo. It was a miracle that xz vulnerability was found so fast, and should not be assumed as standard. The developer had been contributing to the codebase for 2 years, and their code already landed in debian stable iirc. There's still no certainty that that code had no vulnerabilities. Some vulnerabilities in the past were caught decades after their introduction.

The terminal world has Ctrl+C and Ctrl+(many other characters) already reserved for other things before they ever became standard for copy paste. For for this reason, Ctrl+Shift+(C for copy, V for paste) are used.

Why would one be discouraged by the fact that people have options and opinions on them? That's the part I'm not buying. I don't disagree that people do in fact disagree and argue. I don't know if I'd call it fighting. People being unreasonably aggressive about it are rare.

I for one am glad that people argue. It helps me explore different options without going through the effort of trying every single one myself.

Doesn't feel like that to me. I'll need to see evidence that that is the main reason. It could be but I just don't see it.

Xorg is a display server for Linux ecosystem. Every ecosystem has a display server. It is what makes it possible for you to have graphical applications with movable windows that can talk to each other, or have a mouse cursor that can click on things.

Wayland is a replacement for Xorg because Xorg is old and its developers said an alternative is needed. Wayland has differences that I won't discuss here, but I'll be happy to do so if you ask.

Hyprland is a wayland compositor. A compositor is basically an implementation of wayland (there are many) and gives you a windowing system that you can run graphical applications through. It is usually a lot more minimal than having a full graphical desktop like KDE or Gnome.

Hyprland belongs to a class of comositors called "tiling", which forces windows to be in a tiling formation. In other words, windows do not overlap or stack on top of each other. Hyprland stands out in having a lot of eye candy and visual effects.

I use CLI for moving files, etc. After you use it for a while, you find out it can be more efficient, faster, and more pleasant to work with.

I have a feeling this is a joke. Either way I'm not following sorry 😭

A symlink works more closely to the first way you described it. The software opening a symlink has to actually follow it. It's possible for a software to not follow the symlink (either intentionally or not).

So your sync software has to actually be able to follow symlinks. I'm not familiar with how gdrive and similar solutions work, but I know this is possible with something like rsync

I didn't look much into void, but when I did, gentoo's repository is much larger and there are many packages that I'd call obscure that happen to be in the main repos.

The situations I've had to reach to guru are rare. I bet that gentoo has more obscure stuff in its main repo, though I don't have the numbers to prove it.

Any examples other than ocaml? From my understanding, ocaml's type strength may only be found in a couple other languages. Haskell, scala, and maybe Rust. Any others?

GURU is source only

Is void different? Does it have a user repository that provides binaries directly?

My familiarity is with AUR, which does not provide the binaries directly. I suppose you can write a PKGBUILD that only installs a binary, but you could do the same with ebuild.

On binary support, I imagine you're right. Binary support in gentoo is new. I imagine it will only get better.

Comparing cost to AWS Aurora is unfair. Give us the self host price, and compare to that.

Also, they should have tried Scylla or Cassandra. It's very scalable and handles a lot of writes.

You already said it, but even if you want mostly binaries, gentoo is becoming a distribution that can do that. So I don't think this is something that sets them apart.

Plus, gentoo handles compilations so well, it is almost as simple as binary package managers.

Why b-1 instead of just b votes? "because the vote could've otherwise went to B" well it could've also went to T, but I don't see you accounting for it as t-1.

This math has a double standard.

The author would likely really enjoy gentoo. Imo it has all those benefits and a little more, plus its more popular.

I won't remember everything, but one very important things comes to mind:

in Typescript, it is very difficult to assert on a type (let me know if you're not familiar with what I mean by this and I can explain further). In OCaml, this is trivial using pattern matching.

Why would you need that? The idea of a type system is it doesn't let you apply a function on a structure without the structure being of the right type. But the lack of type assertion in TS makes people follow hacky workarounds, which defeat the purpose of type system.

There are a couple of other things, like immutable types by default, automatic tail call optimization, functors enabling higher kinded types, etc.

Also in ocaml, you don't have to annotate any types on any variable or parameter, and you'll still get full type protection.

Move account to another unethical, profit driven bank or?

Y'all still believe in the illusion of choice / opt-out in capitalism.