I moved and had my computer shipped via sea. Literally 8 months with no update, update was massive, no issue at all (arch BTW).

Most of my update problems were either a keyring or a problem with an AUR package that had to be uninstalled, update ran, and reinstalled again because of a dependency loop.

I run bazzite now just because I literally don't have to remember to update, but arch-based is completely fine.

The only major problems I every had were on Mint and Opensuse, 12 and 5 years ago respectively. All distros are pretty care-free nowadays I think (except manjaro).

Is it better than TrueNAS, which is now also Linux based, and has built in docker and KVM VMs?

Hey friend, thanks for having my back on this, I appreciate it. 😊

I fully agree. The level of maintenance on Arch is up to the user. I'm just starting to get really tired of hearing people who don't really understand how Arch really works, or haven't even used it, regurgitate this mere rumor as hard truth.

Just like any system, the level of maintenance you need to do depends entirely on what you have installed. It does not come inherently from Arch or a rolling release. People think that just because the install process is complicated (also a false reputation; everything is explained, so all you need to do is read instructions and type text), the installed system need also be.

It's just uninformed and I'm tired, boss. ❤️

Stopped using this when they sold or "leaked" my email address

I tried that, and it was incredibly slow for me. I tried to use eMacs because of the org mode, but eventually I gave up and returned to markdown and vim.

I think you need a good understanding of why would you want to have eMacs with vim keybindings. Perhaps that’s super useful for someone, but I just gave up for now.

Tried what I thought the opposite side is, Helix. Didn’t work for me either. I’m with vim for now, may reconsider at some later point, when I’d have more resources to learn and explore.

Most ai output has been watermarked since I think 2023, Anthropic is just more open about it.

I am pretty sure this still produces too many false positives when applied to code because of the way these watermarks are implemented. I am not 100% sure on that though. It could be used on commit messages though.

does this benefit Nvidia users yet? last I heard it wasn't yet implemented in the proprietary side of their drivers yet

Sounds nice. We’ve got ~500 employees at our “site” (which is now distributed across 3+ states with remote workers), of those, about 8 do software development, so developers end up doing virtually all of the translation of customer “needs” to specifications / requirements. We also have a marketing department that changes their mind about twice as fast as the product development / delivery cycle.

you're acting like the solution here is LLMs, when the solution is just hiring more people. LLMs aren't 'solving' anything, they're just masking the problem and allowing the millionaires at the top to keep making tons of money.

Simple questions to an LLM like: “review this procedure, is it internally self consistent” will find issues, real issues - usually minor - but undeniable when you read the review, the problem it describes is absolutely present in the document, page 14 says “X” and page 23 says “not X” and the context is basically identical - so which are we really supposed to do: “X” or “not X”? Well, that depends. Depends on what? Additional context and detail that the already too long 50 page procedure doesn’t address.

lol and I find issues like this in LLM output of only 1 or 2 pages. LLMs can't even be consistent across paragraphs, much less hundreds of pages of context window. what an insane claim.

LTS is pretty good for my grandma

LTS distros have never been more superior

You put a made-up quote in my mouth and then got angry at it. I said commits should be judged on their merits. I said nothing about profits or ignoring harm.

If unit tests are being done, some kind of emulator is usually what gets used and the scope of testing is significantly limited.

The more common approach is to abandon unit tests all together and go for board functional tests where as many of the external interfaces are controlled and put through representative loads. The complexity of the software is rarely that high so we can be pretty confident that we're covering everything we need to care about anyways.

See? See?!

😄 Thanks for sharing!

I don't recommend anyone use the AUR if it can be at all avoided.

The AUR is just a script that builds the package from source so you could just make your own bash scripts to do that? I don't remember my cmake commands off the top of my head but I think it's just;

cmake
cmake build
cmake install

Those bash scripts might also be in the repo as pkgbuild so you can copy it from there but you'll have to change any ArchLinux specific command to debian.

No, Red Hat for the most part is not in the security game. There is OpenSCAP. Red Hat OpenShift does have Advanced Cluster Security available. But generally no Red Hat doesn't make security products like that. I guess maybe the closest would be using Satellite to manage clients and see their compliance. I don't know if Satellite can measure OpenSCAP compliance... Yes, there is a lot of security built in, but no they don't really do many explicitly security products.

That definitely increases the challenge of writing tests or trusting that they are faithfully representing your production environment.

I could abstract out the reading of the data

I was going to suggest this, and it sounds like that ends up being expensive. It seems like you need some kind of test harness that's able to emulate your specific hardware while still allowing for testing hooks that don't impede the tight clock scheduling.

No, the kernel does that. Coreutils are the tools for the user to do that through the terminal, and for shell scripts that can’t make kernel calls (because they’re scripts).

(Fun fact: you can absolutely call that kernel function I just linked to in a super unsafe way in C, leading to a vulnerable tool whose only job is to read a directory, like ls.)

he is comparing a deterministic tool with a non-deterministic tool

Yes, but that's not the argument Mikina was stating. Linus was never advocating for reading assembly line by line. Linus was using that as a satirical example, not suggesting anyone should actually do that.