trevor (he/they) @ trevor @lemmy.blahaj.zone

Hello, tone-policing genocide-defender and/or carnist 👋

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

450

Joined

2 yr. ago

If this is anything like crostini on ChromeOS, Google's solution is also virtualized.

I like YAML, as long as you aren't using complicated syntax. Using the | operator will get you some flexible usage that's mostly easy enough to read. YAML definitely has its problems though. If you want, I can share some snippets of my config.

Sadly though, due to Espanso not having a working RPM build for Wayland (or a Flatpak, which they're working on), it's not quite as cross-platform as I want it to be. It won't work on any of the cool uBlue-derived distros that I've gravitated toward, so I'm hoping we get a nice, big update this year.

Espanso is probably the most useful software that nobody is using. I can't live without it.

I hope it gets an update soon...

3 absolutely did. But that said, not all of the original tracks made it into the 1+2 remake, so I wouldn't base whether or not you buy it on that.

This is literally the only humane way to keep everyone safe.

I'm very firmly in the Rust for Linux camp because I am in the "make Linux better" camp, and I don't see why eventually getting Zig in the kernel would be a problem. If Zig solves problems that C and Rust don't, by all means, it should be brought in.

However, one of the primary reasons Rust was chosen is that it is memory-safe by default. Zig, on the other hand, has opt-in safety. So unsafe Zig should probably only go in very specific places where C and Rust can't do the job. And ideally, there would be some rules that require the usage of safe Zig everywhere else.

Ignoring Zig, the language, Zig's compiler toolchain is hands-down, the best I've ever seen, and I think introducing Zig to the kernel by making "Zig-built Linux" a thing, would be a really natural way to get that process going.

I just cant wrap my head around why they're willing to go so far to gain good will from people by having such a generous free tier, but somehow licensing the code under a FOSS license is out of the question??

Why not just go all the way and make sure everyone who cares about reading the souce could also give you free contributions?

Well, hopefully the get on that. They have to realize that a large portion of their target demographic (people fed up with garbage search) also rightly don't want their search histories tied to their real identities.

Yes, because private property is theft. But unequal enforcement of copyright law is worse. Right now, LLMs are just lying machines trained on pirated data and the companies that run them are acting with impunity for doing something a normal person would get put in jail for.

Copyright is immoral, but as long as it exists, the laws should be extra strict on companies that steal others' works.

What does this actually do? Is it possible to use Kagi without providing them personal information to create your account yet?

I don't disagree with most of that, but none of what you said actually addresses the problem. The problem is that there are functionally two (notable) flatpak repositories, but one of those is going against the will of the upstream software devs and shipping broken software that they have asked them to stop packaging. And Fedora users are getting the broken flathub repository as the default, without really having reason to suspect that their "flathub store" would ever trick them into installing from a different source. The "verified" badge, especially the lack thereof, does not address that.

As for users feeling “tricked”? That’s a difficult thing to say. I would like to say that users should at least know something about the distro they are choosing (ie Ubuntu users should know about snap; Fedora/Debian users should know about their stances on FOSS, security, and patents; Arch users should know its a DIY distro).

You can RTFM someone all day, but if you actually want Linux to be adopted by more people, you need to reduce the anti-patterns. Snaps are generally known about because they are infamous for also breaking packages. And they're still major footguns when people are recommending Ubuntu to people that are new to Linux, who are the least likely to know that their apt package installations are going to be installing differently-packaged software that has its own set of problems. If we get to a point where Flatpaks have a similar problem to Snaps, we've taken a wrong turn, and it will only hurt Linux adoption.

The OBS and Bottles packages have been broken for a long time. Long enough that both upstream projects asked them to stop many months ago. They don't get to pretend it was a mistake. This isn't just another case of a minor packaging bug getting to users. They are packaging the software incorrectly.

I answered most of this in the other thread, but I am aware that anyone can make flatpaks. What I meant is that flatpaks were supposed to make it easier for devs to get their software to end users by allowing them to not have to worry about distro-specific packaging requirements or formats.

But when someone else takes it upon themselves to make broken flatpaks, ones that you've requested they stop doing, now they're making things worse for everyone involved and should be considered a hostile fork and treated as such.

They work on other distros... if they work at all. If those "strict guidelines" are resulting in flatpaks like OBS and Bottles, which are broken and the devs have tried to get them to stop shipping, then I'll pass on Fedora flatpaks.

I dont criticize Flatpaks for allowing alternative packaging sources. I criticize Fedora for sneakily (whether intentionally sneaky or not) setting their broken flatpak repo as the default, leading to a bunch of confusion by Fedora users that don't know they're actually using different, sometimes broken, packages from everyone else.

The uBlue downstreams of Fedora know this, and they have the decency to present the user with that information upon installation. So thankfully, their users don't end up wasting their time with problems that Fedora introduced.

I think a sort of Linux compatibility layer could go a long way toward making Redox more viable. It may already have one, but that seems like a good place for an ex-Linux kernel dev to work.

can they simply fork?

Forking the Linux kernel will effectively guarantee that no one will run their software. None, but the most niche distros would ship it. If the Rust people are forced to fork, their time may be better spent contributing to Redox.

Why do people love Rust so much?

Rust makes it very difficult (but not impossible) to write dangerous code, whereas C pretty much guarantees you'll write something dangerous (and therefore insecure or buggy) at some point, especially in larger codebases, like the Linux kernel. Arrogant devs will defend keeping Rust out of the kernel by saying things like "write better code", but if the people writing kernel code for 20 years are still writing dangerously flawed code, it's safe to say that at a certain point, we need a better tool. That tool is Rust.

Rust also has very high-quality libraries that produce nicer finished products. I learned Rust because of clap and ratatui, which make superior CLIs and TUIs to anything else. Seriously, go use a CLI or TUI that was made in Rust. Try bat, a cat clone. You'll get easy, great command-line completions, easy-to-read help output, optional, beautiful syntax-highlighting, theming, etc. It's hard for me to go back to vanilla cat.

And I say all of that as someone that likes C. C is really fun, and it's a very powerful language, but it was not designed to be memory-safe. If it was, the people complaining about Rust would just complain about C too.

Obviously, the best solution is that the gets settled out-of-court. However, Fedora has had a long time to listen to the OBS devs' request to stop packaging broken software, so maybe they won't listen to reason.

Fedora needs to get their heads out of their asses and kill the Fedora Flatpak repo.

The lesson is that Fedora Flatpak Repo needs to fuck off. It's an anti-pattern to have an obscure flatpak repo with software that is packaged differently from everything else.

The entire point of flatpaks was to have a universal packaging format that upstream devs could make themselves, and Fedora is completely undermining it.

Yeah. Nothing about this is dishonest. It's just a normal dev cycle.

I think people in the Linux community have a predisposition to call Apple products "low quality", but as someone with an M2 Pro MacBook and a Framework 16, the Framework feels like cheap, mushy garbage in comparison. The Framework is still really cool for other reasons, but build quality is not one of them.

The speakers on MacBooks are actually really good (the Framework speakers sound like absolute shit), and the OLED screen + keyboard & trackpad can't be beat. I would run Asahi on it if it supported more than 60Hz on the built-in display and the mic worked. If those two things don't matter to you, you might really enjoy Asahi on a Mac.