And we all know Arch isn’t a distro right?

Is this sub-populated mostly by Facebook people? Some of the answers really feel like it.

What you’re asking is akin to: why are people impressed by the airplane? We’ve already reached the Americas and India by boat.

SpaceX, and others actually are not advancing science per se, but are greatly improving/optimising the engineering so that it can be used in cheaper ways by others.

There’s also the issue that after the moon landing we didn’t really improve that much and much of the knowledge faded

You cherry picked his argument and left out the rest where he states China’s as cheaper standards of environmental “friendliness”

That’s the journalists’ fault. They have no business going through studies like this, that are not meant for them to make conclusions.

Believe whatever makes you feel better, that’s all you can do, really.

Just stop spreading this bs, and stop reading news like these. Believe what accredited sources tell you, like your doctor or other professionals

I see your point, but in this case I feel OP was misinterpreting the situation

But that’s the thing where you are wrong. They clearly state they don’t want C developers to learn Rust. In the particular video posted he was saying “I want you to explain to me how this particular API works so that I can do it”

The concerns about who fixes what on a merge when the C code breaks Rust code are valid, but that’s easily fixed by gathering with the Rust developers, explaining the changes and letting them fix it.

Sure and place neovim there

Can you point out where I said that?

The issue is not agreeing, but behaving like an immature prick when arguing

Isn’t Linux still Linux even though probably a lot of the original code is gone? Why would slowly rewriting it whole, or just parts, in Rust make it stop being Linux?

I agree with your views. But I have to give praise to Linus for bringing Rust into the kernel.

Yes I agree but the solution for a project so big and critical is not to fork. How do you maintain all of it while at the same time adding support to Rust?

The difference is that now you have a scope of where the memory unsafe code might be(unsafe keyword) and you look there instead of all the C code.

This is such a dumb take. For as much as I’d like to have a safer language in the kernel you need the current developers, the “big heads” at least because they have a lot of niche knowledge about their domains and how they implementation works (regardless of language) People shouldn’t take shit like this from the ext4 developer, but it doesn’t mean we should start vilifying all of them.

This guy’s concerns are real and valid but were expressed with the maturity of a lunatic child, but they are not all like this.

Can you explain how a booster that flew 23 times is a loss when no other companies are doing it? I don’t like Musk but people need to separate their views of him from SpaceX

Better in what ways? Rust’s strong points are not to just make a program more stable, but more secure from a memory standpoint and I don’t think Linux keeps improving on that

I don’t believe for a single instance that what he says is going to happen, this is just a play for funding… But if it were to happen I’m pretty sure most companies would hire anything that moves for those jobs. You have many examples of companies offloading essential parts of their products externally.

I’ve also seen companies hiring tourism graduates (et al non engineering related) giving them a 3/4 week programming course, slapping a “software engineer” sticker on them and off they are to work on products they have no experience to work on. Then it’s up to senior engineers to handle all that crap.

I can’t understand Logseq, even though it seems appealing. I haven’t gone too deep yet but to me it feels weird that they say it’s simple and then their documentation is confusing and full of videos explaining how it works. That seems far from simple.

I’ve tried lutris before never heard about Bottles. I’ll give it a try. Thanks!