pekk

Can you share an instance where you actually needed a btree? What made it a true need (business need of some kind maybe_ and not just a measurable difference?

PIA has already supported Freenode for a long time.

In return, Freenode has consistently sabotaged the Tor service so that the only way to connect safely is with a VPN.

Or maybe instead of a distro, we could define certain conventions for interoperability that all distributions had to follow. We could call it the "Linux Standard Base." But looking into my crystal ball, it might not work out well if certain companies flex too much control to define the Linux Standard Base as being essentially their own distribution without any real compromise.

Windows packaging isn't all it's cracked up to be. There is no standard package repository, the norm is just to distribute executables of various kinds, the process of building installers is not that simple...

"Starting deb after and if investing on rpm failed would have been much wiser" except that Debian developers already knew rpm didn't meet their needs.

But these arguments are always selectively applied to certain parties (e.g. Canonical) and not others (e.g. Red Hat).

By this logic, BSD developers should just work on the Linux kernel. Or is it the other way around? And nobody should ever make anything new. But this reasoning would have said not to make Linux to begin with, because there was already e.g. MINIX and Linux wasn't contributing to MINIX and didn't do anything that MINIX could not do. In fact, Linux wasn't even a microkernel! And few of the abilities which make it Linux as we know it today were on any "roadmap" (hahahaha).

In open source, making your own project is not starting a war. This kind of flaming and demanding to control other people's allocations of resources is what makes a battle.

"Spending resources for a 3rd one"

1. Doubling the number of people on a project does not double the speed of its production. It may actually hurt matters. This is the classic problem of estimating with man-hours and ignoring coordination costs

2. They aren't your resources to spend. Canonical doesn't tell Red Hat what it can do, so why the other way around?

I know the pain of searching for software to meet your requirements. But unless you have a friend you can really trust to provide informed recommendations, nobody can take this pain away for you.

If all require projects to say negative things about other people's projects while talking up their own, a lot of projects are going to distort the facts. In the end, if we don't have the ability to evaluate the software ourselves, then all we are measuring is who can shout the loudest and who is the most aggressive against other projects. Quiet projects will still be good, but now those would be overlooked even more because they aren't shouting. With this requirement you are making your life easier but you are making life harder on open source developers by forcing them to deal with unnecessary inter-project drama and to divert lots of effort into marketing that could have been put into code. That might make sense in proprietary products, but in open source this kind of demand just hurts the ecosystem.

If the pain of choosing is too much then choose something that is standardized, or the most popular thing, or what your trusted friend recommends. People will seek out the very specific projects they need. If you don't even know why you are using something, it isn't the responsibility of someone else to tell you why you are using it!

In what way is Ubuntu not for humans to use?

I don't know what youtube-dl even is, why should your personal interest be the top priority of Ubuntu and when it doesn't work evidence that Ubuntu isn't fit for humans?

Not at all, it's very good and would be the right thing if you wanted to be able to buy books from their store.

The people complaining about performance are always going to be louder.

R is old. R always had math. That's not new. Python always had a lot of other things. Strange depiction.

What is the point of GPLv3 if it is not allowed to have any difference from GPLv2?

If you're going to say that the GPL is viral because it applies to derivative works, then almost any license is viral because the license of any work follows it around. That is the nature of licenses.

Anyone who expects to copy-paste other people's code into their own code and change the license is just fighting the legal system. You're still going to have to follow the terms of the license, whether that means sharing changes or including attributions.

GPL doesn't "taint" codebases. It is deliberately applied to code by the people who write it, knowing what it is. It's not an inferior version of a BSD license. It's a different license.

If you don't want your hard work to be swallowed up into some company which profits from it, doesn't make its changes available and ultimately develops a competitor that the original cannot legally use improvements from, a BSD license won't help you with that. If you don't care, then there are any number of choices.

Other licenses you mention are also complex and haven't been tested. Licenses in general, not just GPL, are harder than people think. When it comes to lawyers, you get what you pay for.

It's revealing at the end that you say "no one wants their hard work to become a derivative of a smaller project they pull in." The size of the project doesn't give it special entitlements. Why are you pulling in someone else's code if you don't intend to respect the license set by the person who wrote that code? That sense of entitlement to exploit other people's work without reciprocation (because you're bigger?) is the problem creators use the GPL to address.

If you want to build a community that isn't based on the crumbs that some company (like Nintendo) allows to fall, and you don't want that to be subverted by free riders who use your code to compete with you without letting you use theirs, GPL is a better choice.

But if and only if it is your code, it is your choice what license you use. Note that in the real world, people are constantly attacking GPL and harassing people who apply GPL to their own work, but the other way is not happening. We should respect the licenses applied by creators to what they create.

Pascal has null. Does that mean it is dynamically typed?

You're right that these arguments apply to many languages, but they're not tautological or nonsensical and the choice of Lisp (like many other choices) can be defended.

"Optimization" describes the result, not the implementation. Unless you consider intelligence to be average-suboptimal, it's entirely reasonable to say that it's about optimization without committing you to any claim about how intelligence is implemented.

Having read a lot of what he's said, he uses words and phrases in an idiosyncratic way that isn't the same as they would be used by, say, a politician. He may or may not be racist, but he's schizophrenic so we should probably chill out on him and go police someone who isn't schizophrenic instead.

You offer interpretations of several sentences. These interpretations are guesswork. Even if we take your interpretations as perfectly correct, they don't knit together into any coherent message.

The man is schizophrenic. You are holding him to account for a kind of performance that he is biologically not equipped to provide. He isn't harming anyone and as far as anyone can interpret what he says, many times he uses words like "nigger" he is complaining about things like how we have made computing overcomplicated. I think it's worth it to cut the guy a break.

That doesn't mean we accept racism in general, it means we don't have to pick on people who can't help the way they express themselves. Do we pick on people with Tourette's for saying bad words?

Did you pay attention to what TempleOS is for? Do you know what it was like to program for the C64? It is ring 0 only on purpose! That's the whole point!

The idea that someone would go into a thread about TempleOS, trash TempleOS for one of its central and distinguishing features, and then use the thread as an opportunity to promote some new OS written in Rust is boggling my mind.

Actually all the times I've read him use the word "niggers" (and it is an offensive word, I won't dispute that) he actually means something different than you would expect.

640x480 isn't a crazy convention at all when you understand what is required to interface with the display hardware and you remember the goals of TempleOS. He wanted to recapture transparency of the C64 system in a 64-bit system. It's pretty clear Terry didn't want to spend all his time writing vendor-specific device drivers and painful workaround cruft.

This also applies to things like the RedSea filesystem and the way memory is used.

Do you know how much you could do in a month but can't because of bad design choices, overengineered type systems, and dogmatic adherence to the 'every application needs to be written in the language with the best benchmark numbers' myth?

If you had made this comment to the introduction of HTTP itself, I would today be hailing you as a visionary

Many other languages have industrial support, a proven toolchain, and are known by a lot of candidates: Java, C#, modern C... this is if we restrict ourselves to only the most popular languages with compile-time type enforcement, which is fairly arbitrary.

It's okay to admit that you like C++, it's what you know best, and that it's not unsuitable for the things you want to do. The same as someone else says that about F# or Lua.

And the disadvantage is that you have to pick and choose them after learning about all of them, and you have to deal with the choices made by whatever other code you have to work with, and you have to reason about all the combinations. For most tasks, this is overkill, which is why C and languages other than C++ persist even though C++ has everything.

That isn't a fact, just a personal opinion. Disagreement with that opinion isn't a matter of ego or having an outdated view. A lot of people have looked hard at the language and actually tested it out and found many actual flaws. To rule that out you have to assume that everyone except you is just being stupid.

At best, you can do things with it, and you still have to if you want to run on browsers, so if it makes you happy you have some happy years ahead of you before it becomes irrelevant. But other than running on browsers, the main reason anyone uses it is that they are familiar with it or have sunk costs and aren't really that aware of the alternatives. Javascript has nothing that many other languages didn't have before it, except that artificially enforced monopoly on running in browsers.

If you are going to "throw everything in IO" then what advantage does Haskell have?

If you are more proficient in Lisp than Python, your Lisp will be more readable than your Python.

It's 2017, weren't we all supposed to be living on soylent by now?