Dammit, I was a day late on making this joke. Filthy Bagginses.

That’s because it’s pure bullshit. And this repo will be deleted or abandoned in a month.

Again, good luck :)

Pretty subjective that what you’re advocating is “right” and not just simple opinion. It also is easily construed as semantics with little benefit to argue. But I admire your convictions. Good luck.

Interview wasn’t bad. I especially like Torvalds’s take on meetings and interruption of flow.

Going to be pretty lonely on that hill.

Damn good point! I feel the same way about CEOs as of late and how they think AI is going to solve everything, even problems they invent just to say they’re using AI.

In my experience, as a 25-year developer in mostly OOP languages and frameworks, is that people who attack OOP usually don’t really understand it and its usefulness.

And to be fair as it relates to attacking languages or language concepts, I attacked JavaScript without fully understanding it, many years ago. I now understand it more than I ever have in the past and it has some good qualities.

So these days it’s no longer the languages or language concepts I take issue with (though I’ll joke about JavaScript from time to time). It’s the developers who misuse or misunderstand the languages or concepts that irk me. And especially the developers who think being lazy is a virtue.

This article sounds a decade old.

systemd attempts to cover more ground instead of less

Have I got news for the author about the kernel he seems to have no issue with. (Note: I love the Linux kernel, but being a monolith, it certainly covers more ground instead of less, so the author’s point is already flawed unless he wants to go all Tanenbaum on the kernel, too)

It’s strange to me that if the guy has such a problem with how open source software works (such as his code being used (ideally with license being followed), bugs, pull requests, etc), why did he not just keep it closed source?

Seems to me he either didn’t understand how open source works, or he got in way over his head.

You’re right, though, best to ignore.

When I can set that up for my AppleTV to block ads on YouTube, I’ll be happy to use it.

I was referring to the commenter and how it read to me :) But agreed, what you said, too.

Yes, and that’s what is being called out here. But your original comment makes it sound like you are advocating for closed source software and that somehow open source software is bad.

This is the system working as intended. When potential issues arise, it’s openly discussed and ideally resolved. And if not, trust is lost and people will stop using it.

Exactly. Acting like this is an “ah-ha, see?!!” moment when this is exactly what open source is designed for. That’s like saying global warming is a hoax because “oh look it’s snowing”.

Sure, that, too. Problems are problems, irrespective of by whom and where they are discovered. And solutions should be matched to the problem. If AI is such a solution, great! But I’m not yet convinced that we need to use AI and be in search of problems (which is what CEOs are doing right now), hence my original comment.

I don’t even know how to respond to this. It makes no sense at all and doesn’t really relate to or respond to my comment except it happens to use the word “lazy”, I’m guessing in reference to my comment. Good luck trying to push LLMs, not sure what your agenda really is, other than to be argumentative here. Peace.

And many programmers write some pretty stupid and horrible descriptions. LLMs don’t solve this, they just allow lazy programmers to be even lazier.

When companies can answer this one simple question, “What specific problem does implementing AI (LLM, etc) solve?”, only then might I consider it.

I have heard of only one, maybe two, instances of AI solving a real problem and it has to do with helping a person to speak again, or to walk again, etc.

I have yet to be convinced of any specific problem AI is solving in a browser or an operating system.

And just because “the internet” is latching onto this latest thing, doesn’t mean it’s right. It just means people see a shiny and want more of it.

I already answered that first question.

And then all those app store fronts that say whether a flatpak is verified or not is inducing fear and/or guilt and is therefore bad UX. It’s not, but you are free to have your opinion.

Have fun then, I’m done wasting my time here.

I didn’t say it was more secure, I said it’s about the same.

The difference is a person being forced to go to a website to download software means more steps and more time to consider the safety of what they’re doing. It’s part psychological.

Not all such packages are retrieved from GitHub, I remember downloading numerous .deb files direct over the past 25 years (even as recent as downloading Discord manually some years back).

The main point I’m making is that you should legally protect yourself, it’s a low and reasonable effort.