The Dynamicland website reminds me of the worst of the 00’s, it really turned me off to the whole project

Sourcehut is really the only step between just using an ssh server and something like forgejo that I know of.

I think this is the most important aspect of Linux accepting more rust contributions. More and more existing maintainers are aging out, and people just don’t learn or want to build large applications in C anymore. From what I understand companies doing proprietary kernel development have largely made the rust transition for new code at this point, so fewer and fewer systems level programmers will be used to C (and C++ over time) for these tasks. Existing maintainers pressure against rust development could become a threat to the long term viability of the kernel.

I feel like I did at one point, but I should probably try again

Yeah I’m not super surprised… It used to work well when I bought it back in '17 but it’s become worse and worse with updates.

I’m not a home theater power user, but this is good info to make sure my setup is future proof for when I finally get a new TV. All these different standards get really confusing.

One specific example I encountered was ndarray. I couldn’t figure out how to make a function take an array and an arrayslice without rewriting the function for both types. This could be because I’m novice with the language, but it didn’t seem obvious. I ended up giving up after trying to dig through the docs for a few hours and went back to C++.

Maybe for your use cases that’s OK, but there are many situations where the size and ease of upgrading provided by shared libraries is worthwhile. For example it would suck to need to push a 40+ GB binary to a fleet of systems with a poor or unreliable internet connection. You could try to mitigate this sort of thing by splitting the application up into microservices, but that adds complexity, and isn’t always a viable tradeoff if maximizing compute efficiency is also a concern.

In my understanding, you can’t interface with the C abi without using an unsafe block.

The main issue I have with rust is the lack of a rust abi for shared libraries, which makes big dependencies shitty to work with. Another is a lot of the big, nearly ubiquitous libraries don’t have great documentation, what’s getting put up on crates.io is insufficient to quickly get an understanding of the library. It’d also be nice if the error messages coming out of rust analyzer were as verbose as what the compiler will give you. Other than that it’s a really interesting language with a lot of great ideas. The iterator paradigm is really convenient, and the way enums work leads to really expressive code.

I had no idea this was the case, in a sane legal system this should be an open and shut antitrust case.

The company i was with was still using clearcase when those were popular. I’ve used github, gitlab, and bitbucket as git based software forges professionally. In fairness Github is way better than the clearcase process we used.

I’ve used several different forges over my career and github is the worst by far. The navigation is clunky, the search never searches the stuff you want to look at without menu hopping, the recent repos doesn’t include half the stuff you made a PR to recently, CI integration kinda sucks compared to gitlab or bitbucket.

Are there any companies making discrete laptop graphics that don’t have proprietary drivers? I don’t think I’ve ever seen an AMD powered laptop unless it used an APU. I shudder to think of what proprietary Linux drivers from a company less resourced than Nvidia are like.

IMO the syntax is fine except for the borrow checker shit that just looks arcane. The fact that everything cargo drags in is statically linked really turns me off the language for anything serious. It’s really unfortunate because I’d otherwise put some time into learning it, but it seems like the rust foundation is fine with this (ridiculous IMO) workflow.

Tbf, does anyone actually “like” C++?

Isn’t a huge part of the point of copy left licences that an author can’t change the license without rewriting the code entirely?

A dedicated server is needed because something needs to keep a catalog of the smart devices available on your network and ideally be accessible to many people in one household. You could make a system that went phone -> device but you would need to set up each device on each phone you wanted to use, which isn’t a great user experience. You could also run into issues where devices would need to handle multiple conflicting commands from different users coming in at once. Since smart devices are usually trying to use as little power as possible, that extra complexity would hurt you in that department. The third reason is that having a separate server enables automated workflows that would depend on an always online server that orchestrates multiple devices. For example, let’s say you have some automatic insulating blinds, a smart thermostat. You want to raise and lower the blinds to maximize your energy efficiency. Since you have the dedicated server, that server can check the temperature set point of your thermostat, current weather, and sunrise\sunset times. If it’s sunny out, and your set point is higher than the outdoor temperature, the server can raise the blinds to let warm sunlight in, and vice versa. If only your phone could control the devices a workflow like this couldn’t work when you were out of the house.

I wouldn’t recommend it. The Git documentation itself doesn’t recommend rebase for more than moving a few unpushed commits to the front of a branch you are updating. Using it by default instead of merge requires you to use --force-push as part of your workflow which can lead to confusing situations when multiple developers end up commiting to the same branch, and at worst can lead to catastrophic data loss. The only benefit is a cleaner history graph, which is rarely used anyway, and you can always make the history graph easier to read with a gui without incuring any of the problems of rebase.