What made you think I was talking about Trump? I just said "authoritarian".
457 karma · joined April 13, 2009
Neither one is the type of community I have any interest in participating in, and if some sort of mandate came down enforcing it on any of the large social networks I would no longer participate in them.
I was a relatively early adopter to CentOS 7, and I have yet to run into an issue that I could pin on systemd across any of the Linux systems I use or maintain. Then again, my requirements tend to be pretty "normal" and not terribly taxing - at most I crank out a couple of server-specific service and timer files and get on with my life.
I totally understand where some of the critics of systemd are coming from. No matter how you slice it, more lines of code is invariably going to result in more bugs. And the development team does seem a bit myopic at times - though nothing deserving the death threats they get.
However, there were some clear disadvantages to the old-school sysv init, and I thought that it was important that Linux settle on a new standard init system and do it without yet another instance of fragmentation happening, like with rpm vs deb or Flatpak vs Snap or countless other examples. Systemd happened to be it, but honestly I didn't even care what the init system was as long as something finally "won" and didn't introduce yet another schism. In fact, I highly suspect that if something else had won people would have doubtless found an axe to grind with that one too.
The latest snap I had to get rid of was Visual Studio Code, because I was trying to work on an open source game with it, and I found out that if I launched the game from inside Visual Studio Code, my game wouldn't play sounds because it couldn't communicate with PulseAudio, and attempting to use ALSA just straight up gave me an error.
On the other hand, I've only had positive experiences with AppImage. Gives you an all-in-one image that you can directly execute if you like, and no sandboxing nonsense.
That said, I noticed the strange behavior around this article as well. I've seen it pop up multiple times in various content aggregators, and the /r/technology mods even removed the post that I happened to notice and comment in.
I'm not sure why, it seemed like a completely reasonable article on its face. But maybe there's something underhanded going on behind the scenes?
ZZT was a fun game creation system out of the box, but what always impressed me was some of the stuff that the community managed to come up with - mostly documented in the ZZT encyclopedia series as well as the Super Toolkit. It pushed the engine far beyond the limits of what it was intended for, and some the projects done with it absolutely blew my mind.
It was unfortunate that the source was lost, and for a long time the best you could do, aside from DOSbox, were projects like DreamZZT which, while admirable, didn't accurately emulate all of the peculiarities that many games relied on. But now this exists. Thank you.
I'm not sure what the implication is here.
> The issue around IRC is not a problem that can't be solved and really has been solved with the Web UI clients, for an every day user, to clients that make it simple otherwise.
The issues surrounding IRC are partly because of inconsistent client implementation of features, but I think an even bigger problem is the inconsistent feature set of servers, which end-users have no control over. Sometimes it's because the server simply hasn't implemented a particular feature, other times it's because there is no feature - and if you're lucky, you'll even be told condescendingly that you don't actually need that feature in the first place.
And of course, there's also the stuff that is implemented, but only accessible through bot interfaces that are incompatible between servers. Or the problems that are technically possible but require using a bouncer, and even still, that has inconvenient warts like having to grep through logs to search for stuff that isn't in your backlog, and the seemingly impossible-to-solve issue of persisting private messages across reconnects in a way that's useful in all situations.
In any case, Mozilla has mentioned their intent to make their Matrix server accessible from an IRC bridge in the future, so it really does seem like the best of both worlds - giving Matrix uses the advantages of the platform like editing chats and easy offline channel history, while allowing IRC users to continue using their comfy client. Personally, for me, it's the other way around - Matrix has almost completely supplanted the use of my self-hosted IRC bouncer, and I'm looking forward to the day when I can shut it off for good.
For what it's worth, I downgraded my drivers to the last set of drivers from 2019 (19.9.2) and the problem seems to have gone away, but I'm having other issues instead (for instance, half the screen flashes dark when Night Light turns on). Guess it's time to upgrade and file some bugs.
> As long as the "vitriol" was pertinent to the topic, it should be allowed. After all, that's the point of the voting system right? If you don't like it, vote it down.
Voting systems as implemented by many popular sites are moderation/censorship via mob rule, and I'm surprised that you advocate for it.
I actually prefer having actual moderators to having a post voted down because five random people disagreed with my opinion and wanted to hide it in a attempt to control the narrative of the comment thread.
That's a problem even this site doesn't manage to avoid. Heck, look at your posts; in this comment thread, people are downvoting you in an attempt to hide your opinion, and I don't even agree with you.
Not sure that was the best example. /r/programming is kind of notorious for being HN on a few-hour tape delay with a substantially diminished quality of conversation and fewer comments in general. But it's kind of a moot point because...
> twitter, reddit, facebook
All of these social networks are moderated to one degree or another. In fact, this entire post was spawned because of a Twitter moderation decision, and it is nowhere near the first time that this even happened.
More importantly, none of these social networks gained popularity because of lack of moderation. Twitter became popular because you could potentially win the lottery and talk to a famous person. Reddit became popular because Digg refugees needed somewhere to go and it had pornography on top of that. Facebook became popular because you could keep up with your buddies from college and everybody had real names and faces attached to them.
In my experience, most people are not interested in sifting through mountains of garbage just to pick out a few morsels of a decent conversation. If you let trolls and bad-faith actors persist on your site, soon those people will be the only folks who are left.
Funny you should mention that. Python's standard GUI system is still based on tk, and from a quick look at the docs you can even run a tcl script from inside Python.
I chose focused. It's a nice option.
Too bad it doesn't respect your search engine preferences, because any searches you do with it seem to always go to Bing, regardless of what address-bar search engine you have selected.
Still, I dig what the project is going for, and intend to try out Parcel 2 when it becomes stable.
https://guide.licensezero.com/
> The Prosperity Public License (Prosperity) works a bit like a Creative Commons NonCommercial license, but for software. Prosperity gives everyone broad permission to use your software, but limits commercial use to a short trial period of 32 days. When a commercial user’s trial runs out, they need to buy a private license or stop using your software.
> The Parity Public License (Parity) works a bit like AGPL, but requires users to release more of their own code, in more situations. Parity requires users who change, build on, or use your work to create software to release that software as open source, too. If users can’t or won’t release their work, they need to buy a private license that allows use without sharing back.
I'm one of those folks that usually defaults to AGPL for their open source work for practical reasons - it's much easier to go from a copyleft license to a permissive one due to circumstance than the other way around. However, I always found it a bit strange that there were dozens of variants of the MIT and BSD license out there, but aside from the GPL and MPL no other popular license really took up the mantle of copyleft, aside from perhaps the old Sleepycat license.
This looks like a very appealing license on its face, but the fact that it's specifically _not_ written in legalese is a little weird, though the fact that the author is a lawyer is some reassurance.
I found that when my project grew to a certain size, I started running into many cases where I needed many implementations of some base type, the kind of pattern that lends itself well to classes and simple inheritance. This pattern is totally 100% possible to roll yourself in C, but requires a bunch of boilerplate each time and I found that every time the implementation came out slightly differently, or that I had to go back and rewrite a bunch of code because I needed one more layer of flexibility than I anticipated.
I also really wish templates were in the language. Maybe not to the C++ level of flexibility, but at some point, you're going to need a dynamically allocating array or hashmap of a specific type, and your choices are either going to be *void or some macro thing that makes your eyes cross.
Also, build tools in 2019 are still kind of bad. I use CMake and try to do things "the right way", and I still run into trouble occasionally, mostly surrounding external dependencies and generation of files outside the scope of the C compiler. It's a shavable yak, but it's still a yak.
Still, the lack of mental overhead and the much faster compilation times compare favorably to C++. But if portability wasn't a goal, I'd seriously consider an alternative like D, Zig, or Nim next time.
Here's a more detailed list, for the curious:
- Changes since Lua 5.3: https://www.lua.org/work/doc/#changes
- Incompatibilities with the Previous Version: https://www.lua.org/work/doc/manual.html#8
I'm not so sure about that. There is an alternative implementation of Lua called LuaJIT, which uses a similar NaN-tagging trick, and it also happens to be incredibly fast. LuaJIT uses the 5.1 version of the language, with some backported 5.2 features for compatibility, but it will likely never backport 64-bit integers from 5.3.
It's resulted in something like the Python 2/3 split. Except it's even worse because Lua has relatively little penetration as a general purpose scripting language, but is quite popular as a language that can be embedded in a program to add scripting capabilities. This means it's up to the developer of said program which version of Lua they choose to embed, and from what I can tell, most developers choose speed over 64-bit integer support.
Copyleft licenses ensure that the code itself remains open source. MIT-style licenses ensures that a developer can use the code without encumbrance. And there are already plenty of licenses out there that are incompatible with the GPL through other conflicting terms - non-commercial licenses come to mind.
What would be the goal of an anti-copyleft license other than to stick it to copyleft projects?
There are tools to help you out, like c2nim, but in my experience the output it produces requires fixing to get it working, and of course when the upstream library changes or adds to its API those sorts of things have to be taken into account as well.
GPLv2 is not the only license without an explicit "no-take-backsies" clause, and pretty much all literature I've read about open source previous to this incident suggested that although you could relicense future versions of the code, you couldn't put the genie back into the bottle on old releases.
Also, to be frank, I think that if there _was_ settled law saying you could rescind old licenses, it would have far-reaching ripple effects throughout the open source world. Let's be clear, it would be a weapon that could be used by any slighted maintainer or former maintainer to damage a project, for _any_ reason. And if a single or group of maintainers could do it, a corporation with dollar signs in its eyes could do it just as easily. Be careful what you wish for.
Does this seem contradictory to anybody else? Kind of like "anonymized data collection" that turns out to be not-so-anobymous when it invariably leaks?
C++, but apparently something similar is being considered for C as well.
https://twitter.com/jfbastien/status/989242576598327296?lang...
Why not? Modern desktops are all hardware-accelerated anyway.
"Your terms are acceptable."
I think that is precisely what those sites want. They would probably prefer not to waste bandwidth on a user they can't monetize.