towerful

joined 2 years ago
[–] towerful@programming.dev 19 points 21 hours ago

2026 Debian Vs 2001 windows?
Or 2001 Debian Vs 2001 windows?

Cause 2001 Debian 2.2 was like 4MB ram, maybe 16 if you are really going for it!
https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/projects/omnibook/boot-floppies/current/doc/ch-hardware-req.en.html

So yeh, let's continue comparing apples and oranges.
FreeRTOS is bloatware cause we were able to orbit a sphere that could reflect radio waves with a bunch of tubes and a handful of germanium.

What the fuck is this "windows xp Vs modern Debian" shit?

[–] towerful@programming.dev 31 points 2 days ago (2 children)

It's the "wall and make them pay for it" it's the "tarrifs and make them pay for it" now its "war and make them pay for it".

[–] towerful@programming.dev 2 points 1 week ago

That's not a big financial incentive.
Microsoft will remove stuff when it actually gets in the way.
If it's easier to leave in and not have to touch dozens of other programs/services then they will.
They might mark it as depreciating, and start planning a suitable replacement. They might just mark it as depreciating and kick the can down the road.
When enough services that relied on that depreciating thing have been touched due to other updates, then they might look at actioning the depreciation.

But if it doesn't actively break the thing they are currently working on, the cost overhead or ripping it out is insane.
There might be other dev teams working on features that now rely/leverage the thing marked as depreciating. But the thing getting marked as depreciating happened towards the end of the other teams new feature development cycle. At which point actually depreciating the thing might invalidate that other teams entire project.
And maybe the rip it out, and it turns out one of their large clients (or a large amount of the user base) was relying on it.

Addressing technical debt is always hard to justify, but it always makes a better project.
If management doesn't care about a better project, they will prioritise features and things that make money

[–] towerful@programming.dev 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

But maybe they have the lowest crash rate?
So like, crashes cost money right? Someone is responsible. Someone has to pay.
But if everyone dies in an inferno, then nobody is responsible. Who can pay? They're all dead! What medical bills? What repairs? It's all a write off.
Sounds like a high mortality rate with low accident rate is an absolute profitable win! Free market baby!

[–] towerful@programming.dev 2 points 2 weeks ago

Mumble is fantastic.
I designed and implemented a very complex voice system for an old guild. Like 100 people, 8 groups of 15, group leader's private chat, priority speech all that. It worked so well, and never failed.
This was many many years ago, to be fair.
I wish it's positional audio was more supported.

[–] towerful@programming.dev 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Well, non-flammable vents for one thing

[–] towerful@programming.dev 4 points 2 weeks ago

Being "anti-drugs" can be a positive position of support for drug users and tackling the root of the problem.
Not just "do drugs = bad guy". But actually understanding the problem, and addressing it

[–] towerful@programming.dev 19 points 3 weeks ago

IDK. It puts them at the forefront of this fight.

If governments successfully prosecute distro maintainers (if they can) for this, then distro maintainers are liable.
And distro maintainers would then have to pursue non-compliant users to cover that liability, or fold.
Which is a huge loss for open source.

Or, there would be a huge legal fight and it turns out that the licence of a distro protects it from its users actions.
Which would be awesome and a massive win. It also makes sense. Nobody is suing an OS maintainer because it was used for a data breach.
And then the governments have to pursue the actual users. Which... is gonna be useless wrt these laws

[–] towerful@programming.dev 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I dunno if a "cheap drone" can produce the same magnetic response that a fucking cargo ship can, but it seems extremely unlikely.

And what, you have 2 in the water ahead of you? Is that enough for it to be clear for a cargo ship? They function perfectly all the time and catch every single mine?
What happens when 1 finds a mine? How many extras do you carry? What happens when you run out, "just turn around"?

Drones could probably clear a shipping channel, but at some point and actual ship is going to have to go through it.
And the suez canal was blocked for ages due to 1 ship, even after having been operated for decades. That, except the ship sinks.

[–] towerful@programming.dev 213 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Sounds like there needs to be some sort of efficiency department set up

[–] towerful@programming.dev 7 points 3 weeks ago

Any trump "I did that" stickers showing up?

[–] towerful@programming.dev 2 points 3 weeks ago

Do the level-headed Christians do anything about the non-level-headed Christians?
Cause that's what ACAB is about

view more: next ›