You are forgetting about elephant in the room - if every bug require rebuild of downstream then it is not only question of constraint it is also question of SSD cycles - you are effectively destroying someone drive faster. And btrfs actually worsens this problem - because instead of one Copy on Write of library you now have 2n copies of library within 2 copies of different apps. Now (reverting/ø) update will cost you even more writes. It is just waste for no apparent reason - less memory, less disk space.
"compression is insanely effective" - And what about energy? compression will increase CPU use. It will also make everything slower - slower than just plain deduplication. Also, your reason for using worse for user tech is: the user can mitigate in other ways? This strikes me as the same logic as "we don't need to optimize our program/game, users will just buy better hardware" or just plain throwing cost to user - this is not valid solution just downplaying of the argument.
Yea what a Fall of Rome type dream - just look what happened when people overused a specific measure - we had Crowdstrike with around 8.5 million devices crashed to BSoD.
Identical OS, identical apps, identical updates, identical crashes at same time.
If you centralise then it is not the question "Will?" but "When?" it will fail.
" "faith" is offensive " - and how exactly do you think most people act to science ?
Do they check every fact that they learn by experimentation?
Or do they trust/believe authority that given them such fact mindlessly?
Can we stop putting our morality and faith above another's?
Any aggressive ideology that forces it believers to censor non-believer viewpoint is ultimately self-destructive - even if you force non-believers they will not believe in it - because they never trusted it.
"You just cannot promote them to impressionable audiences like children" - the fact that child has device is problem not the fact that device can access information.
"one particular set of contributors' political sensibilities." - the entire western world is now particular sets of political and ideological sensibilities. Why puritan christians always assume that theirs is somehow different of others and won't be subject to new puritanism?
"Read the comments and you'll see their tone is clearly dismissive and condescending" - you think that way because you are biased to classify your religious text as not nsfw - but there is no such reason really - christianity is no longer main ideology of everyone.
To be really fair - semitic politheism had a thing for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch . This can be seen as opposition (a weak one) or whitewashed remnant of endorsement.
I'm not sure that this label works though - I get the F-Droid is doing it because of regulatory push but it seems to me that simply notion of "safe internet" or "safe app-store" is fundamentally misguided (we didn't made TV safe - just gave ranking and let parents decide)- and I can see that someone with modern sensibilities looking at older or god-forbid "ancient" literature will have to mark huge swaths of it as not safe.
I think that most of this rage should instead be directed toward this regulatory nonsense instead of F-droid though.
This does illustrate ironical thing - and what christian puritans forget - bible will not OK for atheistic/modern puritans.
I don't but could you not forget that some people don't have a car.
You can walk or use transit in proper cities.
When I need a bag then it is not a phone it is a laptop without keyboard.
Me who wrote long, long comment and then accidentally pushed close tab shortcut.
!!@@!
I would recommend building some packages containing rust, especially on older hardware - and then realize that because of static linking you will need to rebuild it very very often - and don't forget that you are building clean.
Because it is expected that you will use required shared libraries to make life easier.
I think that rust people should maybe sometimes just consider - that rust if pushed in such way will be more hated than C.
Maybe you should not try to deflect criticism about stable ABI and shared libraries - linux OSes REQUIRE IT - nobody will change OS architecture because you want it.
And maybe we should be more conservative architecturally in especially most critical pieces of software architecture.
It gives rust hate from many people.
And once someone hates language it sticks.
Also add to that the rust zealots who behave like sometimes like political preachers.
"We are future, you are backwards" - says every ideologue.
But conveniently does not say "in direction I want".
When rust started political fight instead of language one they should expect that every rust porting will become political quagmire.
Also you are incorrect - because you are already making wrong assumption:
> crates are not libraries
"never provided a shared library interface" - it doesn't need to, it just need to USE library - distros will convert static one to shared one if that what is reasonable.
Now we have to have C library connected by C headers to (in future) rust application. Sure this somehow works - at cost of memory safety. So someone WILL suggest using rust crate instead of C library, and the problem will inevitably pop up.
You could only say it works correctly as platform stipulates if you did not use any rust crate, or used ones that only your app/lib uses, or trivial finished ones - and I do not see people use rust like that. Even then it is from most linux distributions perspective the distribution job to decide if it should be static or shared linked NOT app-developer.
SSL is something that is prime example of would it best to be written in memory safe language, with safe headers, provided that language makes stable ABI connections, so we can update 0-day not waiting for app developer.
Rust fails spectacularly at last point unless library uses C headers.
But at least it seems that OpenSSL is dynamically loaded after start so they are not changing that too soon.
When I decide to patch some library for my use case I may want to use such library in every instance in every program on the system. Rust crate makes this impossible - now I need to rebuild everything even if I could not reasonably touch ABI boundary in same C code.
Ultimately I think many of linux rust critics see it correctly as company-first/app-centered/containerized/not developement-aware user language (i.e user who can patch software for their specific needs who actively want to inspect every dependency in ONE way), and they prefer the known pro-community/pro-distro/pro-user-developer C/C++ paradigm instead.
(At least fact that many criticism start immediately when GPL project get BSD rust rewrite does point it to free-software/open-source i.e pro-community/pro-company schism)
Many linux users especially developement-aware users just have enough of pip, cargo and every 'modern' stuff - they just want old good apt or pacman.
Then you have people that think slow development and no revolutionary changes should be IT priority in modern times.
Then you have people that do believe that any alternative should be better, easier and simpler than old stuff before it should be treated as even a alternative way.
> Wouldn't it be something if the EU focused on fostering a tech scene rather than attacking it.
> If you don't want Google dominating your populations technology, try creating conditions to grow a replacement.
Talk about fallacy.
It would be better if US started dividing these giants thereby allowing other companies to enter the market.
And before you say something on AI - your companies don't follow your laws either - IP laws - should we remove these? I would advocate that yes, we should - they are nothing more than nuisance (with all the suing costs) in modern times anyway.
We had a tech scene before 2010s - you just can not outcompete these US state-sanctioned companies when they don't follow the law and US cries every time when sane control is applied.
And then there is China to add to that with Temu. Add to that Amazon and fact that there is more than one digital market based in central Europe should be impossible - but they do exist.
And yes we DO have conditions and 'sunlight'.
Look at payment for example:
Google - late 2010s
Apple - middle 2010s
Central European payment systems - 2000s
Some countries reached banking transfer unification - i.e one system to payment transfer with every bank in middle 2010s IN BANKING SYSTEM ITSELF - so as long you have bank account you don't have to have any other transfer system - your bank does it for you - instant.
Yeah so why exactly we have even any competition with Google and Apple?
Ah yeah google pushes it's solution with 'card number' (which if you live in central Europe only time you will use is with US companies) to android.
I still remember culture shock card number gave some people.
When my family member was asked by Netflix to give card number he thought it was fraud - because NO ONE ever did that.
It took enormous amount of persuasion (and call to the bank) that yes - card number is valid system.
He asked me what blocks netflix from slurping all the money if he cannot see the bank website.
He solved problem with (I kid you not) separate banking account where he transferred money before giving that account card number.
And before you have misconception - he was poor but did somewhat (more than most I would say) understand IT - he just did not have trust for his 1000$ pension to not be misused by Netflix employees.
The issue is not that EU cannot make companies - it is that EU companies cannot survive in hostile US market that confuses capitalism with company owned oligarchy.
The thing about EU companies is that they are much more localised - after all they were historically created with country language in mind, not English, some today still don't exist on English web, so you will have trouble to even know about them.
Most of them to this day only work in the same country.
American companies have 380M market + L2 + L3. They rarely limit themselves to country.
EU companies have at best something in range 100M - but realistically if we talk about any other country this falls sharply to ten/s of millions of users.
You already have structural advantage.
US proved that cannot regulate and dismantle its molochs, your choice, but don't come to cry when EU looses patience.
Don't expect that if you try to build & hold monopolies in US because that makes US market "bigger" other countries will not punish you - it's unreasonable.
"compression is insanely effective" - And what about energy? compression will increase CPU use. It will also make everything slower - slower than just plain deduplication. Also, your reason for using worse for user tech is: the user can mitigate in other ways? This strikes me as the same logic as "we don't need to optimize our program/game, users will just buy better hardware" or just plain throwing cost to user - this is not valid solution just downplaying of the argument.
reply