Personal pet theory that may also play into it: Trans people are also often in information security roles. Potentially, because when you have to hide your real identity, you start to get good at it.
And Rust also has various security benefits, especially when compared to C, but also when compared to garbage-collected languages (race conditions are largely prevented).

No…

Ah yes, intentionally misunderstanding someone’s comment. We’ve all seen them.

I mean, what the heck is this passive-aggressive comment? If you disagree with me, then come at me.

It’s a programming language, which is particularly relevant for Linux, because it doesn’t require a runtime (separate program that runs the code). This allows it to be used in the kernel.

But it also means that it’s very good for building libraries. With a small bit of extra work, virtually any other programming language can call libraries implemented in Rust (like you can with livraries implemented in C).
Add to that, that Rust allows for performance similar to C and makes lots of typical C bugs impossible, and suddenly you’ve got folks rewriting all kinds of C libraries and applications in Rust, which is something you might have also heard about.

Yeah, as I understand, in the terms of language design theory, it is technically still “manual memory management”. But since you don’t end up writing malloc() and free(), many refer to it as “semi-automatic” instead, which certainly feels more accurate.

The thing is, everyone would agree that it’s a strength, if the Debian-specific format was provided in addition to a format which runs on all Linux distros. When I’m not on Debian, I just don’t get anything out of that…

I figured, I’d ruffle some feathers by saying that. 😅
But yeah, I stand by my point. Just because your target users are capable of dealing with complexity, doesn’t mean you should be making use of that rather than simplifying usability, since your users have plenty other things they could be learning instead.

I will caveat that I can see it becoming worth it to learn an intricate logic for a power user, when things fall into place and make sense at a higher level as you learn more about it.
But in my experience, that’s just not the case with package managers. You need a few specific commands to be obvious and then the special cases can be obscure flags.

Arch’s package manager is pretty terrible.

Here’s two commands. See if you can guess what they might do:

pacman -S package_name
pacman -Syu

I believe, there’s some sort of logic to the letters, but man, most users seriously do not care. They just want to install, update and remove packages 99% of the time, so they shouldn’t need to learn that intricate logic for three commands.
I guess, you could use pkcon to do that instead, but that doesn’t really help new users…

Well, the thing is, if you’re developing a library, you usually do so, because you want it to be useful to people in the ecosystem.
By putting it under the GPL, you limit that usefulness to only those projects which are willing to also put themselves under the GPL. From an idealist point of view, I certainly also would like to say that people not willing to put their software under GPL don’t need to be my users. But from a library author point of view, I might as well not write a library then, since no one’s going to use it then.

Many open-source projects are under a permissive license themselves. I might disagree with their choice, but I don’t really want to exclude those from using my library. They’re still doing good things. I would love to exclude specifically any proprietary software from using my library, but that’s not really something you can require in your license without excluding all those permissive open-source projects.

So, to answer your question, I actually don’t think people are being tricked into it. I thought about choosing GPL for my libraries for a while (all my applications are under GPL) and decided against it. Which is a personal choice that others can disagree with, but all I’m saying is, I know what I’m doing, I wasn’t tricked to use a permissive license.

If a GUI can be built which accomplished something in 1-2 clicks, then there’s very likely a CLI which can do the same with 1-2 commands, as CLIs are easier to implement than GUIs…

Original link (in Spanish): https://www.xataka.com/servicios/foros-internet-estan-desapareciendo-porque-ahora-todo-reddit-discord-eso-preocupante

Well, it was more of a rant, I wasn’t exactly asking for suggestions. But you making a suggestion was perfectly fine anyways. I do just have opinions on proprietary Android apps.

I mean, thanks for the suggestion, but it doesn’t seem to be open-source, so that’s a hell no from me…

I have this problem with Android. Google has turned the filesystem into unusable garbage, so you’re lucky, if you can launch a gallery app with a file path and it allows you to actually go through the images in that folder.

And of course, that’s with a local file path, so the situation is completely hopeless when your images are on a network share. Unless the gallery app itself implements the network protocol, you’re out of luck.
Wanna guess how often that happens? Yeah, it simply doesn’t. Even if it’s theoretically just a library, when you build it into the gallery app, that dev has to continually maintain and test it.

Same. I guess, this is the Starship thread now. My config:

I adapted it from the Gruvbox Rainbow theme.
I can post my config, if anyone wants specifically that. (It does kind of assume a light background, though.)

Yeah, not a lot of distros they could’ve based it on, which are less rooted in the EU. 🫠

GIMP is generally geared towards photo-editing, so if you have an existing image, you can use GIMP quite well to e.g. cut out parts of it or to apply effects.
It’s not really geared towards digital painting or creating new images from scratch, like Krita and presumably IbisPaint are.

Yeah, we’re not arguing against landfills as a general concept. But they’re still basically the least bad solution, when all the good solutions don’t apply or got ignored.

Not producing that garbage in the first place is the big one. Most products in supermarkets are wrapped in trash, even though lots of them could be sold in reusable containers, or at least in biodegradable or recyclable containers. But burying trash underground is assigned a lower price than sending reusable containers back to manufacturers, so that’s what every company does.

The difference is the amount of trash and that more of it is not organic, so will not break down. A small hole in someone’s garden, which largely decomposes over a few decades, is a very different thing than a mountain filled with trash that stays there for the next generations.
For example, groundwater can get contaminated by landfills, if they’re badly planned, or when an earthquake tears the ground under them apart.

If you’d like something LaTeX-like (best for transscribing rather than composing), then there’s LilyPond.