“Hacker folklore that pays homage to ‘wizards’ and speaks of incantations and demons has too much psychological truthfulness about it to be entirely a joke.”
Tesla board member and close Musk confidant Antonio Gracias once took Musk's phone away to prevent him from tweeting late into the night, Isaacson said during a Twitter Spaces event on Wednesday.
"At one point when Elon was firing off tweets without filtering them in the least, they were on a trip and Antonio took his iPhone — Elon's iPhone — and locked it in the hotel safe with Antonio punching in the code so that Elon couldn't get up at 3 a.m. and start tweeting again," Isaacson said, describing Gracias as "one of Elon's closest friends."
Musk later got hotel security to open the safe at around 3 a.m. so he could start tweeting again, Isaacson said.
The biographer added that Musk is "almost addicted to the drama that comes with Twitter" and sees owning Twitter as a way he can be "king of the playground."
"It's something he loves — loves almost to the point of compulsion," Isaacson said, adding that some of his friends, including his brother Kimbal Musk, attempted to convince him not to buy Twitter.
We gotta figure out a better way than strapping ourselves to a continuously exploding bomb and pulling some serious Gs for 8 minutes.
Wonder how some of those SSTO space plane projects are doing...there was a British one I can't remember. Used hybrid air-breathing scramjets, switching to internal oxidizer once it was going fast and high enough.
Space planes carry along heavy-as-fuck wings, control surfaces and a lot of other bullshit that's only useful inside the atmosphere, and which massively increase fuel consumption for every single maneuver while your space plane is actually where you want it to do stuff - in space. And the only benefit is that the atmosphere helps lift and fuel your vehicle to about 10% of orbital velocity. The other 90% it will have to accelerate just like any other rocket.
The SpaceX approach is much better: Land and reuse all parts of your rocket, but don't carry them with you further than where they're useful. Rockets leave the atmosphere where wings would work within a few minutes anyway.
While courts have ruled source code is first amendment protected. Your statement is still very very wrong. Just because it's first amendment protected doesn't mean it can't be classified normally or made illegal to leak because of ITAR.
But go leak some of the source code from XKeyscore or a schematic of a pair of GPNVG if you'd like to test our code classification and ITAR systems.
I'm not taking about sealing some government secrets. I'm taking about building a fun hobby project with some sort of targeting system. Think a small rocket that drops a payload or a water balloon launcher.
Okay but that has no relevance at all to what the comment you were replying to was about. Companies contracted by the government and DOD specifically to create rockets are guaranteed to be covered by ITAR. Meaning open sourcing them would be impossible, regardless of the first amendment or anything else.
There's a massive massive difference between the software for a DOD contracted rocket like SpaceX makes, and hobbyist rocketry.
Olay but again as has been pointed out to you, that has no bearing on government contracted products like this, whether that's code or rockets or anything else the government doesn't want to just share with the entire world.
Why not. If everyone has it, everyone will be afraid to use it, because they know everyone else has it, but what they don't know is how many have developed a working prototype.
Conditioning everyone to see their computers as media consumption kiosks instead of the powerful, productive machines they are. That's where MS OSes are headed. They tried too early with Windows 8 Metro, but they haven't lost sight of that concept.
"My TV shows ads so it's only natural my computer does too." - I bet a lot of people already think like this.
The Telemetry collection service does a good job of that already, especially on laptops where it wakes them from sleep, and eats through the battery while idle in a backpack. I've been stung by this many times since Windows 8 - I now unplug then hibernate my last remaining Windows laptop, work-issued.
Also moved as much personal gear as possible over to various Linux distros a while ago, except my PC where some games cannot detect my sim peripherals & freetrack emulation under WINE
No kidding! Glad someone gets it. A couple I know who Instagrammed their entire cross-Europe vacation last year couldn't understand why I don't want to travel at the same time as them this year even though we're going some of the same places 🤦♂️
Not yet, but it's not a chance I'd be willing to take. They have at least one neighbor who's supposedly been arrested for theft. He used to watch their dogs for them but when they found out they changed the locks.
I have had uni professors sign books to make sure people actually bought new books and not used ones (he wrote them); unfortunately for him i had access to toluene to get pen ink off; did the same to all of my peers;
Fuck those kind of professors
He threatened you to either buy a new book or he would make your uni career hell, one of my mates did it, at the last exam he sent him back 5 times, the last time he went to take the exam the coordiator said "what else have you got to ask to him; he told you everything in your course; [insert name] give me the paper" he signed the paper and sent him off; the prof. Still gave him only 60/100.
I still want to slap that piece of shit.
After that i taught other people in the uni to do that; he tried to mitigate by writing over the printed title of the book; hoping that any tampering would be evident; toluene didn't touch the toner, so it didn't work
Here in italy no one gives a quater of a fuck about that kind of shit.
Good thing is that the same can be said when after the last exams he always needs to call a tow truck since he won't have tires, not even cameras were able to stop them, and i'm quite sure other professors turn a blind eye to them since they also hate him.
just fyi:
"teach" is one of those words in English that has a different suffix for it's past-tense: it is "taught".
Eg. "They taught me to sew."
"teached" is improper.
Note: not to be confused with "taut" which is pronounced the same.
You know what I also hate? When professors take your phone while in class. I had a professor that did that back in my days of gender studies college and he saw nudes of my they/them girlfriend at the time. Mannn it was an awkward rest of the class and he didn't tell anyone, but I really showed him, ended up taking the day off next day and nailed his wife. Dude never found out or anything, turns out her wife has dated several other guys while he's busy at school teaching students. Still never confirmed whether he found out or not.
Overall, lost my train of thought, in response to your comment they do it to be sure you have the most recent information in the book, don't see an issue tbh.
The specific case here was the professor had a financial stake in new books being sold.
I do agree updated editions with new information could be important, but again when theres a financial incentive to sell new books, the obvious lean will be towards making new versions even if there is no new information.
Since the books can be required, they should be required to show proof they have substantially added to their edition or else relegate it to a minor revision (maybe adding sub-editions like 1.0, 1.1, 1.2; where you only need the first number to be current). Right now its a whole lot of, "Trust us you need this book and the only pre-owned versions are out of date".
As a side thought, this is the kind of thing that makes me wonder if they use the book costs to weed out those that will not allow themselves to be abused to that degree. This would leave only those who would conform to their leader/manager/teacher and are less likely to try to change the system.
Side note: to anyone looking to follow this method, please try to limit the amount of toluene you are exposed to by wearing gloves and working in a well ventilated space. It can do dirty shit to your nervous system and I've seen chemists start to experience symptoms from relatively little exposure to the fumes.
In general if you can get a respirator or at least an n95 mask if you still have them from covid(apparently that doesnt work); also make tries on an old book before going on the good one, at least if you mess up it isn't another hole punched in your wallet
A respirator with an organic vapor trap will work, but an N95 will do essentially nothing for chemical vapors besides give you a false sense of safety.
If you have nothing, do your work outside and don't work with your face directly over areas with the toluene.
In some ways I think the filesystem is philosophically the exact opposite of systemd --- I can boot my system with an ext4 root, with a btrfs /home...or vice versa. Or add some ZFS, or whatever. The filesystem is (with the exception of some special backup schemes) largely independent of the rest of the system, despite being of core importance.
On the other hand, I can't change my init system (i.e., systemd) without serious, serious work.
It's also "infectious" software. The way systemd positions itself on the system, it can make it more difficult for software to be written in an agnostic way. This isn't all software, and is often more of a complaint by lower level software, like desktop environments. https://catfox.life/2024/01/05/systemd-through-the-eyes-of-a-musl-distribution-maintainer/
This isn't a terrible summary of some of the aspects of it.
Another aspect is that when it was first developed, the lead on the project was exceptionally hostile to anyone who didn't immediately agree that systemd definitely should take over most of the system, often criticizing people who pointed out bugs or questionable design decisions as being afraid of change or relics of the past.
It's more of a social reason, but if people feel like the developer of a tool they're forced to use doesn't even respect their concerns, they're going to start rejecting the tool.
it doesn't run a job it waits for your jobs to end. You can set the default want time. Its the same thing on windows that asks programs to close before shutting down. If a critical application got stuck systemd has nothing to do with it
I know what it is. But it literally says "A stop job is running" and since english is not my first language, I had no good idea how to better express the technicalities of it in a short sentence.
As for it having nothing to do with systemd:
I am dual booting arch and artix, because I am currently in the middle of transitioning. I have the exact same packages on both installs (+ some extra openrc packages on artix).
About 30% of the shutdowns on arch do the stop job thing. It happens randomly without any changes being done by me between the sessions.
0% of the shutdowns on artix take more than 5 seconds.
I know that I can configure it. But why is 90 seconds a default? It is utterly unreasonable. You cite windows doing it, but compare it instead to mac, which has extremely fast powerups and shutdowns.
And back to the technicalities, openrc doesn't say "a stop job is running", so who runs the stop job if not systemd?
The question you should be asking is what's wrong with that job which is causing it to run for long enough that the timeout has to kill it.
Systemd isn't the problem here, all it's doing is making it easy to find out what process is slowing down your shutdown, and making sure it doesn't stall forever
I will not debug 3rd party apps. I don't even want to think about my OS nor ask any questions about it. I want to use a PC and do my job. That includes it shutting down asap when I need it to shut down asap.
systemd default - shutdown not always asap
openrc default - shutdown always asap
whatever the heck macs init system is - shutdown always asap
It may be not the "fault" of systemd, but neither does it do anything helpful to align itself with my needs.
The default is as long as it is because most people value not losing data, or avoiding corruption, or generally preserving the proper functioning of software on their machine, over 90 seconds during which they could simply walk away.
Especially when those 90 seconds only even come up when something isn't right.
If you feel that strongly that you'd rather let something malfunction, then you're entirely at liberty to change the configuration. You don't have to accept the design decisions of the package maintainers if you really want to do something differently.
Also, if you're that set against investigating why your system isn't behaving the way you expect, then what the hell are you doing running arch? Half the point of that distro is that you get the bleeding edge of everything, and you're expected to maintain your own damn system
If an app didn't manage to shut down in 90seconds, it is probably hanging and there will be "DaTa LoSs" no matter if you kill it after 2 seconds or after 90.
Been running arch for over 5 years now.
I track all my hours and for arch maintenance I've spent a grand total of ~41 hours (desktop + laptop and including sitting there and staring at the screen while an update is running). The top three longest sessions were:
btrfs data rescue after I deleted a parent snapshot of my rollback (~20h)
grub update (~2h)
jdk update which was fucky (~30min)
|
It's about 8.2 hours per year (or ~10minutes per week) which is less than I had to spend on windows maintenance (~22h/y afair, about half of that time was manually updating apps by going to their website and downloading a newer version).
Ubuntu also faired worse for me with two weekends of maintenance in a year (~32h), because I need the bleeding edge and some weird ass packages for work and it resulted in a frankenstein of PPAs and self built shit, which completely broke on every release upgrade.
btrfs data rescue after I deleted a parent snapshot of my rollback
Can you expand a bit on that? I thought it didn't matter if you deleted parent snapshots because the extents required by the child would still be there.
Honestly, I have no idea why it went wrong or why it let me do that. Also my memory is a bit fuzzy since it's been a while, but as best I can remember what I did step by step:
fuck around with power management configs
using btrfs-assistant gui app, rolled back to before that
btrfs-assistant created an additional snapshot, called backup something, I didn't really pay attention
reboot, all seemed good
used btrfs-list to take a look, the subvolume that was the current root / was a child of the aformentioned backup subvolume
started btrfs-assistant and deleted the backup subvolume
system suddenly read only
reboot, still read only
btrfs check said broken refs and some other errors,
i tried to let btrfs check fix the errors, which made it worse, now I couldn't even mount the drive anymore because btrfs was completely borked
used btrfs rescue, which got all files out onto an external drive successfully
installed arch again and rsync the rescued files over the new install, everything works as before, all files are there
btrfs check said broken refs and some other errors,
Gotcha. That must have been a kernel bug (or hardware error), none of the userspace utilities could cause it unless they were trying to manipulate the block device directly, which would be really dumb. It's possible it wasn't even related to the subvolume manipulation.
I think the init system is the best part of systemd. It is sooo easy to use. You don't have to write the same complicated shell script for your software like everyone else. You just give systemd the path to your executable and that's basically it. It does the rest and you don't have to worry about PID files or forking the actual software. Systemd basically runs it like you did while developing it.
I think what people don't like are all the other parts of systemd that seem to be tightly coupled. I don't know if it is even possible to run just the systemd init without any other systemd package.
The last time I got angry at systemd was when resolvd did some DNS shit I did not approve of.
I may be wrong but I believe that all of the systemd programs are decoupled. You can run the systemd init system without any resolved or networkd. They just happen to be used by default on a lot of distros.
It's that it also decided to take over log management, event management, networking, DNS resolution, etc, etc.
If it were just an init system that would be perfectly portable. People were able to write software that way with sysv for years.
It's that in order to do certain low level tasks on a systemd system, you need to integrate with systemd, not just "be started by it". Now if a distro wants that piece of software, it needs to use systemd, and other pieces of software that want to be on that distro need to implement integration with systemd.
A dependency isn't infectious, but a dependency you can't easily swap out is, particularly if it's positioned near the base of a dependency tree.
Almost all of my software can run on x86 or arm without any issues beyond changing compiler targets.
It's closer to how it's tricky to port software between Mac and Linux, or Linux and BSD. Targeting one platform entails significant, potentially prohibitive, effort to support another, despite them all being ostensibly compatible unix like systems.
That’s why I personally try very hard to only rely on POSIX stuff, even when it’s massively inconvenient. The only thing I haven’t gotten around to replacing yet is GNU make.
log management, event management, networking, DNS resolution
and thin is a bod thing? tho distro can choose to not use it, but because every systemd distro uses it, it's a 1000x easier to implement it without needing to put a fuck tons of if-else's for every distro
No, not everyone thinks it's a bad thing. It is, however, infectious, which is a reason some people don't like it.
Knowing why people dislike something isn't the same as thinking it's the worst thing ever, and liking something doesn't mean you can't acknowledge it's defects.
I think it's a net benefit, but that it would be better if they had limited the scope of the project a bit, rather than trying to put everything in the unit system.
and what's the problem?, it's not like everything is in the same binary or it's a monstrosity that can't be used without using every single feature, it's a project that just has different programs under the same project name, because no one wanted todo theoe programs
Indeed, the Unix philosophy was do one thing and do it well. ls just list directory’s and files it’s not a network manager too. Systemd crams a lot of extra shit into an init.d/rc.
I still prefer the old system-v/openRC setup or BSD’s setup. It’s simple does 1 job and does it well. But I can work with systemd just fine in creating scripts these days and it does have some nice features like user startup scripts baked into it and podman integrates very nicely with it.
Units and service files are confusing, and the documentation could be a lot better.
That said, when systemd came out the traditional init stack was largely abandoned. Thanks to systemd (and the hatred of it) there are now a couple of traditional-style init systems in active development.
My understanding is that some people are die hards to the software philosophy of "do one thing really well". systemd at the very least does many different things. These people would prefer to chain a bunch of smaller programs together to replicate the same functionality of systemd since every program in the chain fits the philosophy of "does one thing really well".
Systemd breaks all three of though by being monolithic and binary. It actually makes you have to jump through more hoops to do things in certain cases. I understand it’s a mindset shift but it really starts making it feel more like Windows with how it works and the registry and event log.
I don't see how systemd has anything like the Windows registry. At least its journals are leagues ahead of Windows event logs, I hate those things and the awful viewer they have.
People don’t like it because it’s declarative. It felt cool to be able to just put bash files into certain directories to have them executed on startup. That was elegant, in the sense of “everything’s a file”.
systemd is more of an api than a framework, so it’s a different design paradigm.
I hated systemd until I printed out the docs, for some coffee, and sat in a comfy chair to read them front to back. Then I loved it.
Mostly I hated it because I didn’t know how to do things with it.
Also, “journalctl” is kind of an ugly command. But really, who gives a fuck. It’s a well-designed system.
And if a person absolutely must execute their own arbitrary code they can just declare a command to execute their script file as the startup operation on a unit.
Developer cognition is the most expensive resource on any programming project. It is entirely rational to stick to tried and true ways of doing things. A developer’s mind is generally at capacity, and putting some of that capacity into learning new tricks comes at the cost of all the other things that developer can be doing.
And it’s not just a matter of time. Generally speaking, a developer can only do so much mental processing between sleep cycles.
That’s not to say it’s always bad to learn new things. In fact one has to in order to keep the system working in a changing world.
But throwing shade at developers who hesitate to learn new things is foolish. I’d recommend every developer do shamatha and vipassana meditation so that they can more accurately monitor the state of their own mental resources. Those mental resources are the most valuable and most expensive resources on the project.
Good that you've enjoyed it. But a fundamentally wrong thing about systemd is that it is actively harming the best thing about Linux – freedom. Some programs won't work on a non-systemd distro because how tightly coupled and vendor non-agnostic anything that becomes dependent on might become at times. Of course it's not as bad as glib(loat)c, but still if something can be done without any degradation of functionality via standard POSIX facilities, WHY either incur additional maintenance overhead for non-systemd implementations or punish people for their computing choices if there's no one to maintain it?
I don't hate it now, though I did when it first came out, as it borked my system on several occasions. I'm still not a fan, but it works so eh.
One borkage was that the behavior of fstab changed, so if there was e.g. a USB drive in fstab which was not connected at startup, the system would refuse to boot without some (previously not required) flags in fstab. This is not a big deal for a personal laptop, but for my headless server, was a real pain. The systemd behavior is arguably the right one, but it broke systems in the process. Which is somewhat antithetical to, say, Linus Torvalds' approach to kernel development ("do not break user space").
It also changed the default behavior of halt --- now, it changed it to the "correct" behavior, but again...it broke/adversely affected existing usage patterns, even if it was ultimately in the right.
In addition to all of this, binary logs are very un-UNIXy, and the monolithic/do-everything model feels more like Windows than *NIX.
systemd tries to unify a Wild West situation where everyone, their crazy uncle, and their shotgun-dual-wielding Grandma has a different set of boot-time scripts. Instead of custom 200-line shell scripts now you have a standard simple syntax that takes 5 minutes to learn.
Downside is now certain complicated stuff that was 1 line need multiple files worth of workarounds to work. Additionally, any custom scripts need to be rewritten as a systemd service (assuming you don't use the compat mode).
People are angry that it's not the same as before and they need to rewrite any custom tweaks they have. It's like learning to drive manual for years, wonder why the heck there is a need for auto, then realizing nobody is producing manual cars.
There is also the argument that it's more complicated under the hood and harder to troubleshoot, particularly because of it's inherent parallelism and dependency-tree design, whereas initv was inherently serial. It was much more straightforward to pick the order in which services started and shut down on an initv system.
For example, say I write a service and I want it to always be the first service stopped during a shutdown, and I want all other services to wait for it to stop before shutting down. That was trivial to do on an initv system, it's basically impossible on systemd.
For those wondering, yes I did run into this situation. My solution was clobbering the shutdown, poweroff, and restart binaries with scripts earlier in path search that stop my service, verify that they're stopped, and then hook back to systemd to do the power event.
I had numerous situations where systemd didn't let me abort a hanging service startup during boot or stop during shutdown.
So what do I do now, systemd? Wait till infinity??
That never happened while using other init systems. Because they simply fail properly ("sorry I did my best to stop this, I needed a SIGKILL finally"). Or simply let me log in: "sorry, some services failed to start and now it's a huge mess, but at least you can log in and fix it.".
"I am a new linux user. After 15 minutes of research on google, I found a few forum posts and some niche websites that said SystemD was bad, so I took it as gospel. Now my system doesn't work as simply as it did with installer defaults? How do I make everything Just Work™ after removing any OS components I don't understand the need for?"
I mean you essentially just highlighted a primary user experience problem with Linux....
Information & advice is fragmented, spread around, highly opinionated, poorly digestible, out of date, and often dangerous.
And then the other part of it is that a large part the Linux community will shit on you for not knowing what you don't know because of some weird cultural elitism...
When you finally ask for help once you realize you don't know what you're doing, you're usually met with derisive comments and criticism instead of help.
Do you want Linux to be customizable so that users can control it however they want. Or do you want it to be safe so that users don't mess it up? You can't have it both ways, and when you tell users to "go figure it out" and then :suprise_pikachu: that they found the wrong information because they have literally no idea what's good or bad, instead of helping, they get shit on.
It's the biggest thing holding Linux desktop back.
that they found the wrong information because they have literally no idea what's good or bad, instead of helping, they get shit on.
I don't think anyone's seriously shitting on nooby mistakes, because everyone has done something stupid like that and learned a lesson from it. It's kind of a "cute noob" moment
Debian, Arch, Fedora, Mint, Ubuntu, Redhat, Manjaro all have docs and wiki on their primary websites. Slackware has docs, Gentoo has a wiki. Anything that's not on a distro's site needs to be carefully considered before tampering. Almost all of those distros have a warning in their installation instructions to only listen to the information in their docs and wiki, and to a lesser extent their forums. Hell, even nosystemd.org tells you what systemd is, what it's for, what replacements there are, and the proper way to get rid of it in bold text under the header "How do I get rid of systemd?"
Listening to hackneyed advice from unvetted sources just because they have strong opinions is a problem that any and every computer will face. That's not a problem with linux anymore than the hoardes of trolls on random social media sites telling you to "delete System32" is a problem with Windows.
I want Linux to be customizable AND safe. But safe in the way that someone takes the time to learn how what they plan to do will effect their system, not safe in the sense of "impossible to bork"
As for elitism: if it's "elitist" to indirectly poke fun of someone who deleted a core system component without understanding what it does without a backup, then so be it. It feels more like that word is levied by people whose ego is too big to take respobsibility for the mistakes they made, and instead blame others for laughing when it bites them in the ass.
Idk where these swaths of elitists that refuse to help are. OOP went to stackexchange and likely got a helpful answer complete with explanations, as that is the community standard. Over on !linux , I see people offering help with problems all the time without shitting on them. If I go to the aforementioned OS forums, or really any software-specific forums, I see people helping or pointing people to where they can get help.
And I'm not denying that assholes who say shit like "did you even bother googling?" exist. They're nasty people with no patience, but they're by no means the community standard unless they're the only ones you pay attention to...
Or unless you see a screenshot of a question from a different website posted in a meme-sharing forum and expect the comments to offer advice, instead of laughing at the person who shot themselves in the foot and went to a hospital instead of seeking help at the DNC HQ
The cultural elitism comes from years of tinkering with their system since all the information they can find is fragmented and spread around, highly opinionated,’poorly digestible, out of date, and often dangerous.
Can confirm I am a Linux lurker who would love to learn all this cool shit but right now I don't have the time/mental fortitude to wade through all the bullshit and experiment. I already do that enough with power platform at work and I know that I know nothing. It's exhilarating and tiresome. It would be great if we could have some "training wheels" type of community on here to help new users out.
This isn't a Linux problem this is a society problem people just wanted to one up everyone In anyway they can and sometimes I dont think we do it consciencely
It turns into a Linux problem when it holds back Linux desktop adoption by creating a difficult or even toxic environment for new, low-technical or non-technical users.
IMO that's not what is holding back Linux from adoption. there are great forums with great people and they happen to be in the distros for beginners. You can use your argument with any small enthusiasts groups and that was my point toxicness is not caused by Linux. I personally believe its windows and Mac forcing themselves on people. Have you ever been to a store to buy a computer and someone said hey would you like to try this free OS that installs and acts just like windows instead of buying windows for 100 bucks? Lol its just marketing.
Not trying to start an argument here but I do want to point out that your argument foundations on blaming other competitors instead of looking at what can make the platform you're passionate about more palatable.
There are many, MANY, reasons people will choose Mac and windows on their own accord.
Your argument hand waves that away to make a boogieman out of mac and windows, and erodes the true viability of Linux as a platform by not looking at how it can improve, and instead focusing on how the competition "is bad".
Taking the ego stance that Linux "would be great if it wasn't being held back by the bad guys" doesn't actually help Linux desktop adoption...
The problem is linux is palatable there are many distros that are prebuilt to run like a Mac or windows they just have no way of marketing like Microsoft or apple.
that is because of the Open source licences. If they were able to sell their product do you think linux would be as far behind as it is today?
If those thousands of companies that use linux every single day had to pay a sub fee instead of measily (tax writeoff)donations do you think think XZ would have been hacked? If they could compete in the capitalist race would they be this far behind? IMO no and the open source license is a blessing and a curse
I agree both windows and Mac were once great viable OSes now they are just an advertising machine with apps
linux distros have been held back not by those companies specifically but with how licensing works its really fucked any sort of fulltime development
a company telling me that my perfectly working hardware is not viable for their new OS and not giving me an option with security updates is a boogieman IMO
Cool thing is, GPT fixes all the problems with elitist gatekeeping assholes, whether on stack exchange or something random Linux forum. It truly democratizes information.
Debians official resources are often outdated, fragmented and not comprehensive in the slightest. I had to scour email list and random blog post if I had to deal with some Debian tooling problems.
It's only saving grace, is that it fairly widespread, and that there are these random blog posts.
Except the principles behind linux aren't "being able to customize however you want", that's the principle behind certain distros like Arch. Linux is about being free and open-source, so nobody is beholden to a single entity making sweeping changes that are bad for the community but good for their bottom line.
I feel this in my soul, except about Windows. I've got a handful of machines at work that refuse to update to Windows 10 22H2. They give an error code during the compatibility check. Googling that error code returns dozens of forum posts with hundreds of users and "Microsoft support agents" chiming in. They give the same list of suggestions—that don't work—to fix it. Nobody can say what the error code means, or what the compatibility check checks. The official Microsoft fix is to reinstall.
I don't want to reinstall. The suite of software these computers run would take several hours to reinstall.
This is typical of my experience with Windows. (I'm a Unix/Linux guy.) I look up how to do something in Windows, and with the official Microsoft documentation, one of three things inevitably happens:
I follow the steps and click the things, and it still doesn't work.
I can't follow the steps because one of the things to click is greyed out for some reason.
I can't follow the steps because the documentation refers to an older edition, and Microsoft has removed one of the things to click.
One time, when trying to get Excel to run a mail merge, I ran into all three problems in three attempts.
The same happens with 3rd party sites. They never say the edition of Windows to which their guide refers, and the feature is deprecated or gone. (Most recently it was about getting a Windows 10 start menu behavior back on 11.)
Oh, and since Windows is mainstream, a lot of the information is in the form of AI vomit, and covered in ads and dark patterns.
Its not because you're a linux main that this doesnt make sense, its because windiws has soent the last 10 years enshittifying in order to try and take Apple's walled garden. Once my desktop dies, I'm never going back to Windows, and tbh, if I scrounge up enough to buy a second tower before that, I'm installing linux on that tower, transferring my files over, and then installing linux on my current tower as well
Ubuntu shipped with that issue for some time and fixed it after some time.
Pop os iso on the download page contained it.
The package came from ubuntu but this issue was not visible since up to date pop os does not have this issue. Only the version in iso. So Pop os too made some mistake.
Linus tried to install steam. The installer does not allow removing necessary packages. He tried to install anyway ignoring all warnings, in cli.
It says if you are so sure, type "Yes, Do as I say!" with all cases and punctuation correct. Why would you be required to type a very specific phrase to install steam? Its a clear warning for confirmation. He too makes mistake by ignoring all warnings.
Not to blame anyone but all of them did partial mistake that added up
This was tried in court. The response from the judge was "If the man is dead, then he cannot petition the court. If the man is not dead, then his life sentence has not been served." An excellent exchange of sophistry!
the study finds that people who are otherwise very good at math may totally flunk a problem that they would otherwise probably be able to solve, simply because giving the right answer goes against their political beliefs.
...
it turns out that highly numerate liberals and conservatives were even more—not less—susceptible to letting politics skew their reasoning than were those with less mathematical ability.
Interesting. I wonder if it could be a kind of Dunning Kruger effect where you assume because you're good at logic or some other smart thing your brain doesn't have all the same zero day exploits as the rest of us.
I've been using Ubuntu for about 3, years now on the desktop and I don't know what you're talking about. Where exactly is that prompt?
And they're not hiding updates behind pro, it's just extra on top of the updates you'd get on other distros.
Does what? Sign up for ubuntu pro? For that you just need to go to their website and register. For the homelab stuff you could start small - maybe a linux nas with a few VMs for a pihole or something.
sh.itjust.works
Top