I also don’t get why they seem to be popular with people who like to act scientific, because they seem very unscientific to me.

They absolutely are. And it’s very aggravating to see people immediately invoking it without a second thought. They just assume it to be some absolute universal truth that should be accepted without question. But why?? How is that any different from religion at that point?

I utterly loathe Hanlon’s razor. It’s peak naivete, especially when it’s applied to groups of people that have ulterior motives - like business interests. It essentially gives companies a carte blanche to do evil shit, and when they get caught, all they have to do is blush and say “oops, how could that have possibly happened???!” But in reality, they were just doing some sort of self-serving behavior and hoping they could get away with it. And of course, they’ll just end up doing it again a few months or years later on when the attention has died away.

Moral of the story: Hanlon’s razor does not apply to corporations or other business interests. If it’s your neighbors, well maybe give them the benefit of the doubt. If it’s a multinational conglomerate, hell no, fuck that. Assume guilt 100% of the time.

I know what you mean, just beware: in lots of cases it’s not as universal (as in distro-independent) as some still think it is.

This is especially true when we start talking about BSDs and other non-GNU platforms.

It’s called tivoization and started with a device called “Tivo” which was the first of its kind to attempt this procedure.

There are probably lots of hardware devices in your house that use GPL software but prevent you from actually modifying it because the hardware will refuse to run modified copies. If a piece of software is licensed GPLv3, it would violate the license terms to do something like this.

I’ve only used Github Actions on one project, but I found it to be terribly overengineered and overly complex. I think that’s more the fault of the team than anything else, but hey, Github is run by Microsoft, so I’m pretty sure they deserve some of the blame too.

If you’re self-hosting, I’ve found Jenkins to be pretty nice. Of course, forgejo has its own offerings as well.

Yeah, I’ve seen a lot of those videos where they do things like {} + [], but why would anyone care what JS does in that case? Unless you’re a shit-ass programmer, you’re never going to be running code like that.

By this same logic, memory safety issues in C/C++ aren’t a problem either, right? Just don’t corrupt memory or dereference null pointers. Only “a shit-ass programmer” would write code that does something like that.

Real code has complexity. Variables are written to and read from all sorts of places and if you have to audit several functions deep to make sure that every variable won’t be set to some special value like that, then that’s a liability of the language that you will always have to work around carefully.

I’m not worried about who comes next after Linus. What I am worried about is who comes after GKH…

The Linux Foundation currently lists 6 total fellows (4 not including Torvalds and GKH). I have never even heard of any of them before. I know there are lots of developers on the Linux project, but it’s also a very political position, so I wonder who would take that mantle. Probably nothing to worry about too much, but interesting to think about.

I completely agree. For basic things, it is very good. But for productivity, it leaves a lot to be desired, because they (the developers) simply cannot accept that different people work in different ways and they refuse to accommodate that… I prefer environments that can be adapted to my workflows - I don’t want an environment that forces me to adapt to it. And it doesn’t help that extensions tend to break on upgrades.

Interesting, I was not aware of libdecor. Sorry to hear that it degraded your experience - it really sucks when things like that happen. For what it’s worth, I have seen some interesting themes which could be a reasonable solution to that problem - basically, they made the titlebar very thin or completely missing, except in the area where the window buttons were located, which were enlarged. Not sure which window manager they were made for though - I think it was either xfwm or openbox.

But in any case, this is the problem with CSD - it doesn’t really have a complete, holistic vision. It’s great that they’re trying to be innovative, but then they very quickly run into problems like the one described by the Factorio developer above. So now they’re in a very awkward position that simply cannot meet everyone’s needs.

And yet, we never had this problem before they went on their quixotic CSD journey - that’s why many people think it was a really bad idea.

I don’t understand what change has to do with it. The problem is, lots of people have used it, tried it, criticized it, and been ignored. It has nothing to do with change.

Change is fine, as long as the new version is better than the old one. Look at how KDE evolved. Sure, there were a lot of people that didn’t like the 3 -> 4 transition (not me personally, I loved KDE4), but very few people lament what KDE has become today and it certainly is very different from what it was during the 3.x days.

Personally, yes, I and a lot of other users have read why GNOME does not implement SSDs, and frankly their reasoning is not very convincing, but I don’t think it matters that much. The fact is, users don’t care why it’s not implemented - if they don’t like it, they’re just going to criticize the project and that’s just why GNOME is so widely hated.

Trust me, I don’t want to hate GNOME - I wish I could just make my life easy and use it as a sane default. But if it’s not good, then I can’t do that - and by “good”, I mean how I define a good desktop, not whatever creative definition they dreamed up.

Ah yes, client-side decorations. One of their most controversial decisions (and for the GNOME project, that’s really saying something). And yet, no amount of user feedback will ever break them out of their “we know your needs better than you do” attitude.

Badgers Badgers Badgers Badgers

To be fair, it is pretty hard to keep increasing your market share when you get closer and closer to 100%.

But yes, 2000 or XP was the last respectable version of Windows. Maybe Win7, but I never used it.

Yeah! At this point, Windows is even worse than Minix!

There are a lot of other helpful replies in this thread, so I won’t add much, but I did find this reference, which you could read if you have a lot of free time. But I particularly liked reading this summary:

• _start calls the libc __libc_start_main;
• __libc_start_main calls the executable __libc_csu_init (statically-linked part of the libc);
• __libc_csu_init calls the executable constructors (and other initialisatios);
• __libc_start_main calls the executable main();
• __libc_start_main calls the executable exit().

Reserving main is definitely more hacky. Try compiling multiple objects with main defined into a single binary - it won’t go well. This can make a lot of testing libraries rather convoluted, since some want to write their own main while others want you to write it because require all kinds of macros or whatever.

On the other hand, if __name__ == "__main__" very gracefully supports having multiple entrypoints in a single module as well as derivative libraries.

Is it? I really don’t think so. What can you propose that’s better? I think if __name__ == __main__ works perfectly fine and can’t really think of anything that would be better.

And you don’t have to use it either if you don’t want to anyway, so no, I don’t think it’s that much of a hack. Especially when the comic compares C as an example, which makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Can you put some milk on the algorithm please?