Audio and networking were a shitshow back then, nowadays almost everything just works on those two fronts. Also, having to edit your Xorg.conf is not what I'd call user friendly...
Check rocm's supported cards, oh and after you install rocm, restart your computer - made that mistake when I was doing it and couldn't figure out why it wasn't working.
The Firefox browser logo still has the red panda, you're thinking of the Firefox family logo, for stuff like Firefox send and their VPN. The browser never got rid of the red panda since it was added.
Your M.2 port can probably fit an M.2 to PCIe adapter and you can use a GPU with that - ollama supports AMD GPUs just fine nowadays (well, as well as it can, rocm is still very hit or miss)
I didn't attribute it to malice, I said that the OP's post is correct that Christoph's stance is hardline and a complete showstopper for the R4L project. His reasoning is likely one of pragmatism, by the sounds of it, and it's reasonable, but I simply don't agree given Rust's history as a language used in a codebase historically using another language (Firefox). The success stories there are already written, the language has developed with that in mind already. He's not being ridiculous or malicious, he's just being conservative and playing it safe, but that still gets in the way.
Yeah...until Christoph replied and confirmed what Hector was saying was true and not FUD. He didn't mince words, he said he did not want Rust in Linux whatsoever, only for new codebases, not existing ones like Linux.
Well, they'd need to add a shebang, they'd need to set the executable bit, and if it works, it works, but if it doesn't open a terminal (some DEs do, some don't), you don't even know if it worked, it's not really that straightforward.
In the same way that not everyone cares about how their car works and wants to tinker with it and modify it, but they use it every day - there are people who feel that way about computers, and Linux being viable for those people is a good thing, and we don't need to "dumb down" the whole ecosystem to do it, since Linux is all about options.
What you just said is like "I forgot that changing your tire/oil in 2024 is akin to surgery". Yeah, it's not that hard, but do you know how to do it? How many Linux users who drive a car do you know that could do it themselves correctly? Everything's easy when you already have a breadth of knowledge on it.
Oh, of course, it's just their tools have gotten much better. You could have said what you just did about the internet too, and it'd also be correct, but it definitely had a big impact.
That's not at all the argument I'm making. My argument is that English's inconsistency is, at this point, the reason it is successful. By integrating everything into it, it has become a good enough medium of communication for almost everything. That would not have been possible unless the language eschewed consistency.
Really, a better argument against changing the spelling is the classic "standards" xkcd, where now you're just making another dialect of English where they spell words differently again, and now it needs to be adopted, fracturing the language further. Honestly, though? It doesn't matter. Fix the spelling if you want. English can take the fracturing. The changes might take, they might not, but I doubt it'll make the language more consistent overall, for every fix you put in, you'll have someone who disagrees and doesn't put it in, making your dialect more consistent, but the language overall less so, but it doesn't matter. English will continue to be inconsistent, and that's okay, that's why it works.
The fool's errand is trying to make the language consistent, when it never has been, especially trying to do it via spelling. English isn't consistent. It's not supposed to be. It takes pieces from every other language and integrates them into English whether it makes sense to or not, leading to inconsistency. That inconsistency, I think, is by design. It makes the language more versatile than any other, a "good enough" medium of communication for everything, but usually not the best, which for communication, tends to be fine.
To the spelling point: The world, for the most part, has moved away from the grammarian tradition of the 19th and 20th century of having a handful of dictionary makers decide what English is proper and what isn't - the language evolves on its own, and if a misspelling becomes popular enough, it becomes a proper spelling. For example, facade is a french word, spelled façade, the accent under the C means it's pronounced like an S. We dropped it in English because we don't use accents in English, and now we spell it facade. It's a "misspelling", but you've probably never spelled it correctly. The language was never consistent to begin with, pretending you can fix spelling to make it so is a fool's errand.
moomoomoo309 @ moomoomoo309 @programming.dev Posts 0Comments 88Joined 2 yr. ago
Audio and networking were a shitshow back then, nowadays almost everything just works on those two fronts. Also, having to edit your Xorg.conf is not what I'd call user friendly...