Linus is the leader of the kernel project. As a leader, it’s his job to get the maintainers to agree. It’s not Rust’s job to make the C devs stop bullying them.

If Linus thinks Rust is a good direction, he should show it by actually standing up to Ted and developers like him and making them behave.

If he doesn’t think it’s a good direction, he should say that too, so the remaining Rust devs can stop wasting time on the project.

When someone in a niche part of the project steps down like this, that’s a problem with the top-level leadership. Linus’ record on leadership is… mixed. Trending in a good direction the last few years, but this makes me wonder. He can still save this, but he has to want to.

Bcachefs has all of this. And it’s supposed to be faster than ZFS and btrfs. In a few years it can really be the golden Linux filesystem recommended for everybody

ngl, the number of mainline Linux filesystems I’ve heard this about. ext2, ext3, btrfs, reiserfs, …

tbh I don’t even know why I should care. I understand all the features you mentioned and why they would be good, but i don’t have them today, and I’m fine. Any problem extant in the current filesystems is a problem I’ve already solved, or I wouldn’t be using Linux. Maybe someday, the filesystem will make new installations 10% better, but rn I don’t care.

(In fairness he immediately said “That’s sure to be taken out of context!” He was just discussing the importance of Kubernetes compared to the kernel.)

“The telephone is the only thing that matters.”
– Alexander Graham Bell, probably

I read the damn ticket opened by mcc. I know about the non profit and I don’t trust them with my personal information. Any place that captures valuable data is vulnerable to an attack in the form of financial corruption. I’ll say it again, louder: If they have pure perfect morals now, you’ll be pissed at them in 3 years because management has changed and money got involved.

EDIT: IDK if lemmy has a remindme type bot, but we’re gonna check back in on this one every so often so we can see how long it takes for them to sell out.

Well, yes. Except for the fact that advertisers now have an excuse to try more invasive things to get to their data

They’re going to do this anyway. As far as Firefox is concerned, it’s the browser’s job to stop them. That’s what Firefox is selling: privacy

because of they fumble it they are now an untrusted third party

Assuming I take this for granted, they have already fumbled it by turning on an anti-privacy feature without consent. They can no longer be trusted. Not that you ever should have trusted them because whatever motivation they have for pure moral behavior now, that will change with the wind when more VC money gets involved, or there’s been a change in management.

And firefox has ALREADY had a recent change in management, which is probably why THIS is happening NOW. They just bought an adtech firm for pete’s sake. Don’t trust other people with your data. At all.

There is no such thing as “fully anonymised data”. Data can be de-anonymised by anyone who aggregates it. It’s been demonstrated over and over and over again.

Completely facile argument, right there in the last sentence.

We can keep fighting for something better while still accepting this as an improvement over what we have now.

YOU BUILT THE FUCKING THING. Just turn it off and go away. Tada, we now have something better: no privacy-violating data at all.

Who’s forcing you to make advertisers happy? Don’t answer that, because I don’t care. You can’t pretend to be about privacy and then build things that help advertisers violate it.

This one’s also pretty funny btw:

If at some point they discover they’re doing insufficient aggregation or anonymization, then they can fix that all in one place.

Advertisers don’t give a shit. They have zero motivation to fix anonymization. They’re not going to HELP us get rid of privacy violations.

So an option that is literally documented as saying “all files and directories created by a tmpfiles.d/ entry will be deleted”, that you knew nothing about, sounded like a “good idea”?

Bro, if it sounded like a good idea to someone, you didn’t fucking warn them enough. Don’t put this on them without considering what you did to confuse them.

Also, nfn, the systemd documentation is a nightmare to read through, even if you know exactly what you’re looking for.

(I’m still gonna keep using systemd because it’s better than the alternatives, though. OP, don’t write stuff off because 1 guy is a dick.)

EDIT: Noticed you’re talking about Gitlab in the question, and I responded about Github, but I’m certain that gitlab does everything the same way, because that’s all the technology is capable of. (I have no way to test the ssh -T command at the end for gitlab, though, so ymmv.)

To clear up some minor confusion here:

1. Github knows nothing about your private key. There’s very little metadata stored in the private key, and github.com has access to none of it. That includes email address or identity.
2. Github has identity information stored for you, and then, separately, you uploaded a public key. The public key also contains no information about you, but github knows it’s part of your account. Additionally, github enforces a requirement that your public key can’t be uploaded to any other account, for the reason I’m about to state below.
3. Github has an index built of everyone’s public keys (or more likely their digests, although the technical details of the index are not something known to me–and it doesn’t matter). When it sees an authentication request, it looks up the digest in the index, which maps to a user account.

At this point it already knows who is trying to authenticate. Once your authentication request succeeds with your public key (the usual challenge-response handshake associated with asymmetric cryptography), github interacts with your ssh client (most likely git) applying the permissions of your user and your user account.

BTW, github has a documented method for testing the handshake without doing any git operations:

ssh -T git@github.com

Depending on your ssh config, you might also need to supply -i some_filename.pem to this. Github will reply with

Hi aarkon! You've successfully authenticated, but GitHub does not provide shell access.

and then close the connection.

Note that the test authentication uses the username git and, again, contains no information about who you are. It’s all just looked up on github’s side.

Well I didn’t see the comment you’re apologizing for so, no apology necessary ig?

Jon Ringer’s actual actions did include pushback against representation for trans people. I’ll take your word for it that this article didn’t mention those exchanges; I’m not readin’ all that.

I’m not gonna read this person’s Evangelion analogy, but I did go to the trouble to hunt down what Jon Ringer actually did.

Here’s a link.

I don’t agree with him, and representation of particular minority groups, including gender minorities, are important when they are particularly under attack. It is important to actively resist the marginalization of groups under attack by elevating their voices.

That said, I’m not sure what Jon did was actually “actionable”. I’d say, stop listening to him and treating him as a leader? As someone with lots of close trans friends, I think this guy lowkey sucks, but I think this suspension is weird.

Not a single problem since I paired my first z-wave device.

deleted by creator

Was this written by one of Gabe Newell’s yachts

well, 23 years ago this graph would have had windows 2000 WAY in the lead.

deleted by creator

This is incorrect. It’s true that most (in fact, I would say almost all) forks go nowhere but that doesn’t mean forking isn’t incredibly valuable. Even the example you cite, “original project is dead” isn’t just incidentally useful, it’s critical to open source. Other examples include:

• project’s core team is part of a for profit org that is moving the project in a bad, profit motivated direction:
• project’s leader suddenly and dramatically loses respect (maybe he killed his wife or something);
• project’s leader dies without leaving a digital will regarding who controls the core repo;
• project continues to direct effort into features while falling to address major security concerns;
• project is healthy and useful in every way but there is an important use case not being addressed, and the fork would address it.

Even if 99% of forks fail, that’s irrelevant because 99% of original projects fail in the same ways. Forks are critical to open source.

Proxmox VE is a packaging of Linux as an operating system. It is a distribution. Straight from the wikipedia page:

It is a Debian-based Linux distribution with a modified Ubuntu LTS kernel[7] and allows deployment and management of virtual machines and containers.[8][9]

Cool way to respond to a comment btw:

Am I taking crazy pills?

The VMs I’m running in Proxmox are also Linux, but that’s less interesting to me.