I have to admit that I never understood the need for bashrc and bash_profile. I hated that with a passion when I started to set up my bash configuration. I never saw the need to have so many files and so much complication to have a consistent shell whenever I logged in the console or spawned a konsole in KDE.

The paths shown on that diagram are 7 for bash, and 4 for zsh, so it’s surely an improvement. However, now that I have set it all on a git repository, I don’t see it as a big deal. I have a profile that sources bashrc, and then I do it all in bashrc. I’ve checked /etc/skel and it seems the distro does roughly the same (and I’ve never switched away from Debian or Debian-based in 20 years). I’m not sure if it’s such a big deal. But I’m still curious about trying zsh some day. :)

Thanks for the blog post. I’ll check it out.

Yes. There is already an answer with many votes saying so, but I’ll add myself to the list.

I don’t have to like all the language, and not even all of the standard library. I learnt C++ with the Qt library, and I still do 99% of my development using Qt because it’s the kind of software that I like to write the most. I can choose the parts that I like the most about the full C++ ecosystem, like most people do (you would have to see how different game development is, for example).

I’m also learning Rust, and I see nothing wrong with it. It’s just that I see C++ better for the kind of stuff that I need to write (at this time at least).

Correct. Backwards compatibility is both its biggest asset and its bigger problem.

In syntax alone, you can check what Herb Sutter is doing with cppfront. Specifically, the wiki page on the postfix operators is quite enlightening. It shows some interesting examples of how by making everything a postfix operator you drop the need of -> and the duality of pre/post increment and decrement operators.

Klipper was entirely a different program, process, etc. that was using the system tray. Nowadays it seems to be a plasmoid in the system tray. How can that be less of a UNIX philosophy than the Windows alternative? Because it’s developed by the same community that makes the shell? That doesn’t make sense to me.

They are. Registers are just “named boxes” where you can store some text and/or keystrokes. When yanking and pasting, the unnamed register is used if you don’t specify a name (you can still see or edit it explicitly). For recording a macro there is no default register, though. You need to give it a name.

Meanwhile, this was a feature on KDE-land since Klipper, which goes back (as far as I know and if I remember well) to KDE 3 or sooner.

https://github.blog/2020-12-21-get-up-to-speed-with-partial-clone-and-shallow-clone/

I’d have to dig it, but I think it said that it added the PID and the uninitialized memory to add a bit more data to the entropy pool in a cheap way. I honestly don’t get how that additional data can be helpful. To me it’s the very opposite. The PID and the undefined memory are not as good quality as good randomness. So, even without Debian’s intervention, it was a bad idea. The undefined memory triggered valgrind, and after Debian’s patch, if it weren’t because of the PID, all keys would have been reduced to 0 randomness, which would have probably raised the alarm much sooner.

no more patching fuzzers to allow that one program to compile. Fix the program

Agreed.

Remember Debian’s OpenSSL fiasco? The one that affected all the other derivatives as well, including Ubuntu.

It all started because OpenSSL did add to the entropy pool a bunch uninitialized memory and the PID. Who the hell relies on uninitialized memory ever? The Debian maintainer wanted to fix Valgrind errors, and submitted a patch. It wasn’t properly reviewed, nor accepted in OpenSSL. The maintainer added it to the Debian package patch, and then everything after that is history.

Everyone blamed Debian “because it only happened there”, and definitely mistakes were done on that side, but I surely blame much more the OpenSSL developers.

Is it, really? If the whole point of the library is dealing with binary files, how are you even going to have automated tests of the library?

The scary thing is that there is people still using autotools, or any other hyper-complicated build system in which this is easy to hide because who the hell cares about learning about Makefiles, autoconf, automake, M4 and shell scripting at once to compile a few C files. I think hiding this in any other build system would have been definitely harder. Check this mess:

  dnl Define somedir_c_make.
  [$1]_c_make=`printf '%s\n' "$[$1]_c" | sed -e "$gl_sed_escape_for_make_1" -e "$gl_sed_escape_for_make_2" | tr -d "$gl_tr_cr"`
  dnl Use the substituted somedir variable, when possible, so that the user
  dnl may adjust somedir a posteriori when there are no special characters.
  if test "$[$1]_c_make" = '\"'"${gl_final_[$1]}"'\"'; then
    [$1]_c_make='\"$([$1])\"'
  fi
  if test "x$gl_am_configmake" != "x"; then
    gl_[$1]_config='sed \"r\n\" $gl_am_configmake | eval $gl_path_map | $gl_[$1]_prefix -d 2>/dev/null'
  else
    gl_[$1]_config=''
  fi

I’m not fully sure what the intent of the joke is, but note that yes, it’s true that a header typically just has the prototype. However, tons of more advanced libraries are “header-only”. Everything is in a single header originally, in development, or it’s a collection of headers (that optionally gets “amalgamated” as a single header). This is sometimes done intentionally to simplify integration of the library (“just copy this files to your repo, or add it as a submodule”), but sometimes it’s entirely necessary because the code is just template code that needs to be in a header.

C++ 20 adds modules, and the situation is a bit more involved, but I’m not confident enough of elaborating on this. :) Compile times are much better, but it’s something that the build system and the compilers needs to support.

Precisely, Gary Bernhardt has given a talk on ideology. I don’t think he’s precisely someone who thinks in absolutes. It’s just preaching that some stuff is (probably) used more than it should. I’ve seen way, way, way worse projects that over engineered things and made things slow and unmanageable, than the opposite. Of course, everyone has seen different things, and our perceptions are amplified and biased by that.

The github project page is for developers, and Github already gives you tons of ways to make a user website. Don’t ask your users to visit github.com/group/project, make them visit group.github.io/project, like any sane person.

Same with Gitlab, BTW.

And if you don’t like the full static site, use the wiki, or guide your users in the first paragraphs of the README so they find the user information if they must.

Sorry, could you clarify what you mean? I don’t see the difference. Isn’t the author complaining about Canonical for the policy enforcement?

Thanks. I should have linked to that myself, perhaps.

Sometimes that’s part of the issue (or the whole deal), but sometimes it’s not even that.

Sometimes it’s that someone asked something difficult and elaborate to answer, which has been answered a ton of times, and it’s tedious to answer again and again. But if someone answers with misinformation or even straight FUD, then one needs to feel the urge to correct that to prevent misinformation.

I suffered that with questions in r/QtFramework. Tons of licensing questions, repeated over and over, from people who have not bothered to read a bit about such a well known and popular license as LGPL. Then someone who cares little for the nuance answers something heavy handed, and paints a wrong picture. Then I can’t let the question pass. I need to correct the shitty answer. :-(

Norway.

Ups. Sorry, I meant “NO”.