Trump’s talk on annexing Canada ‘real,’ Trudeau says in hot mic moment
Trump’s talk on annexing Canada ‘real,’ Trudeau says in hot mic moment
The federal government is hosting a summit in Toronto Friday aimed at bolstering the economy in the face of Canada's rapidly changing relationship with its largest trading partner.Uday Rana (Global News)
like this
Maeve likes this.
'Maybe the problem is you' ... Linus Torvalds wades into Linux kernel Rust driver drama
'Maybe the problem is you' ... Linus Torvalds wades into Linux kernel Rust driver drama
Open source project chief hits out at 'social media brigading'Thomas Claburn (The Register)
like this
TVA likes this.
That’s tame for the kernel mailing list lol.
The context is that hellwig doesn’t want another maintainer or deal with a split codebase in the dma subsystem which I honestly agree with.
If I were a maintainer in that position I’d be barring the doors too. It’s not a driver for some esoteric realtek wireless card or something.
Even if I didn’t agree with that position it’s normal to only post on the kernel mailing list about shit you actually care deeply about because it’s public and aside from all your fellow devs taking the time to read what you wrote, psychotic nerds like myself watch it and will try to read the tea leaves too!
it's more niche than C, has less competency available, works very differently to C, and requires a whole new toolchain to be added to the already massive kernel compilation process. for it to be plain sailing adding it to the kernel some of the worlds' foremost domain experts on operating systems would have to re-learn basically everything.
~~also since rust is just coming up on 15 years of existence without a 1.0 release, there's no way to ensure that the code written today will be considered well-formed by the time 1.0 hits.~~
it's a different technology and paradigm that the old guard would have to take considerable time to learn to be as productive as they are in C. it requires a different way of thinking about systems.
basically the rust-in-kernel-gang includes none of the "main" kernel team because they are busy building the kernel. this is an experiment to see if a second programming language can be successfully integrated into the kernel at all. if they try to force their way in, that's going to cause problems for everyone.
Can someone distill the good faith argument against rust? Is there one?
The problem is that even if it's objectively better, you can't magically convert everything instantaneously, and it's a lot more work maintaining rust and C versions of the same code until everything is re-implemented in rust.
like this
TVA likes this.
Forking the Linux kernel is unlikely to go anywhere.
There is Redox, a Unix-like whole OS implemented in Rust, though I don't know if being able to run unmodified Linux binaries is one of their goals. It looks like they're expecting most software to be ported.
like this
TVA likes this.
like this
TVA likes this.
trying to jam their code everywhere using methods that rival the cia simple field sabotage manual.
I am aware of the manual, but I fail to see how adding to a codebase is "sabotage" if it's all generally seen as fine by the project lead - it's far from a hostile takeover.
Would a CIA saboteur even want memory safety as a rule? Just speculating, but I'd say that's unlikely.
Edit: I changed the order of the sentences, as it was not intentionally ordered, and slightly clarified my second thought.
like this
TVA likes this.
for it to be plain sailing adding it to the kernel some of the worlds’ foremost domain experts on operating systems would have to re-learn basically everything.
This is the core problem. It's a social problem, not a technical one.
Well, I certainly don't want to minimize what Linus Torvalds has done. No one has done more for open source software than him, but if he hadn't come along with his kernel when he did there were other options. BSD did eventually get out of the legal purgatory that Linux gave an alternative to, or heck, maybe if Linux hadn't come along Gnu Hurd could have even been a real thing.
I'm happy with Linus being in charge of the biggest open source project in the world. I agree with him more often than not. He's not the only reason open source operating systems exist though.
My understanding is that the rust code in question implemented parts of the c dma interface so that rust programs could use that instead of the c dma interface.
I’m out in the world, not sitting in front of a computer with the source open so that guess will have to do for now.
The most immediate problem with having two different dma interfaces is that now you have two maintainers and an extra step at best when making any changes.
??? Rust 1.0 was released 10 years ago and since then there have been no breaking changes.
blog.rust-lang.org/2015/05/15/…
Announcing Rust 1.0 | Rust Blog
Empowering everyone to build reliable and efficient software.blog.rust-lang.org
like this
TVA likes this.
lore.kernel.org/lkml/293df3d54…
General idea seems to be "keep your glue outside of core subsystems", not "do not create cross-language glue, I will do everything in my power to oppose this".
I don’t think the ends are those of the cia, and I didn’t say that the means were either, only that they were similar to those in a famous mid century guide for those trying to halt or hijack organizations.
I don’t think the rust devs are a cia opp, before you ask. I think some rust devs and even proponents of rust who only cheer from the sidelines are sometimes behaving in ways that raise red flags. I think it’s natural and laudable that the existing devs and maintainers are alarmed by that same behavior. It’s their job.
I also think Linus position on rust has been stretched to the point of breaking and I personally find it hard to take positions seriously that distill the complex process of integrating new languages into a very old very large codebase with many full time developers into “Linus said I could”.
MIT X11-style license
BSD on rust. Will meet same fate long term unless they move to GPL or more copyleft.
Again, I am aware of the manual. I was recently exposed to it, as well, so it's very fresh in my mind. I understand why you mentioned it and understand what you are saying, but I disagree, I don't see the parallels.
I think Linus just wants the drama to stop and the progress to flow, but I'll let him speak for his emotions towards the R4L project and avoid speculating about him.
I'm just openly speculating that there are vulnerabilities in the code, and that the R4L project will uncover those as a natural product of its evolution. I don't think a CIA sabotage manual is apt to describe the R4L project, largely because I see it as progress. From my perspective, maintaining old C code is not something they are sabotaging.
As opposed to the R4L members, there are those who are openly admitting to sabotaging the progress of the R4L project. If you've seen the past public clashes between the R4L project and the Linux kernel community, you'd also be able to garner that from those interactions as well.
Mixing Rust and C in Linux likened to cancer by kernel maintainer
Some worry multiple languages will make it harder to maintain this open source uber-project, others disagreeThomas Claburn (The Register)
(n.b. I am neither a rust, nor C developer so I am writing outside my own direct experience)
One of the arguments brought up on the kernel.org thread was that if there were changes to the C side of the API, how would this avoid breaking all the rust bindings? The reply to this was that like with any big change in the Linux kernel that affects multiple systems with multiple different teams involved, that it would require a coordinated and collaborative approach — i.e. it's not like the rust side of things would only start working on responding to a breaking change once that change has broken the rust bindings. This response (and many of the responses to it) seemed reasonable to me.
However, in order for that collaboration to work, there are going to have to be C developers speaking to rust developers, because the rust developers who need to repair the bindings will need to understand some of what's being proposed, and thus they'll need to understand some level of C, and vice versa. So in practice, it seems nigh on impossible for the long term, ongoing maintenance of this code to be entirely a task for the rust devs (but I think this is taking an abnormally flexible reading of "maintenance" — communicating with other people is just part and parcel of working on such a huge project, imo)
Some people have an ideological opposition to there being two different programming languages in the Linux kernel full stop. This is part of why the main thing that rust has been used for so far are drivers, which are fairly self enclosed. Christoph Hellwig even used the word "cancer" to describe a slow creep towards a codebase of two languages. I get the sense that in his view, this change that's being proposed could be the beginning of the end if it leads to continued prevalence of rust in Linux.
I haven't written enough production code to have much of an opinion, but my impression is that people who are concerned are valid (because I do have more than enough experience with messy, fragmented codebases), but that their opposition is too strong. A framework that comes to mind is how risk assessments (like are done for scientific research) outline risks that often cannot be fully eliminated but can be reduced and mitigated via discussing them in the context of a risk assessment. Using rust in Linux at all hasn't been a decision taken lightly, and further use of it would need ongoing participation from multiple relevant parties, but that's just the price of progress sometimes.
like this
TVA likes this.
No offense, but reading through the comments it's apparent you're not very familiar with systems programming nor linux development. This is a common problem with vocal 'rustaceans', rust is their hammer regardless of the domain.
Although considering rust is prudent, there are still a ton of advantages to using C for systems programming. It is not a binary choice, there are pros and cons, and every project should choose what aligns with their priorities.
No one has ever stated that linux will be in the kernel. It was 'go ahead and give it a shot', which includes convincing maintainers to accept your patches. Linus has delegated trust to subsystems maintainers and an established process.
Hellwig could have been more tactful, but like it or not, arguments against a cross-language codebase have merit. Framing it as a 'clear confession of sabotage of the r4l project', attempting to weaponize the CoC, and trying to drum up an army via social media was all out of line.
Success was never a given, if they want r4l to succeed then they have to get patches approved and crying wolf ain't gonna cut it.
like this
TVA likes this.
and with rossman too.
I decided to read replies: wierd, they suggest accusation is overblown.
I decided to read context: WTF is this?! Unholy shit, dear Faust, what did I read? What a deflection!
I thought I was terminally online with mental disorders, but this makes me look most grass-touching and sanest person.
like this
TVA likes this.
Okey,
Same old story with any project with different generations.
Looks like the old guys are in the wrong - wont be here forever and there by have to let in new ideas and ways.
It’s surprising to see that statement get brought up in the news considering it’s immediately followed by a parenthetical specifically enumerating a multi language code base as the subject not rust specifically.
Iirc it’s even preceded by something to the effect of “I like rust, it’s good and there’s nothing wrong with projects that use it”.
The news coverage of kernel mailing list stuff is always so needlessly breathless.
like this
TVA likes this.
From my understanding, it's not Hellwig's job to maintain the Rust side of the code. They can find multi-language codebases a pain all they want and throw a gigantic tantrum focused towards the R4L project - it doesn't affect the code that they are responsible for. I don't see why the whole R4L project couldn't just be removed if R4L is not maintained by those who develop and support it.
but I will do everything I can do to stop this.
Is an open admission of Hellwig to sabotaging the R4L project.
Seeing the R4L folks as saboteurs or anything close is not in evidence. This isn't the '90s, we have the means to be a lot more productive in regards to coding and managing codebases, and historical maintenance problems are irrelevant. If the R4L team is truly sabotaging the codebase by adding too much complexity or overhead, there are levers that can be pulled to change their direction without blindly rejecting or hindering their efforts.
Two things can be true at once:
- More Rust in the Linux kernel is good
- Brigading on social media is bad
Open source work is collborative. No matter how good an engineer someone is, if they can't figure out how work with others, then it's better to kick them out. A potentially insecure kernel is better than a non-existent one.
like this
TVA likes this.
I think this comment encapsulates the problem well: laymen who are not involved in the process in any way (on either side) acting like armchair experts and passing harsh judgement. You're making some very unfair assumptions based on age, and nothing about the actual technical arguments.
This is why people like Martin feel justified going on social media to publicly complain, because they know they'll get a bunch of yesmen with no credible arguments to mindlessly harrass the developers they disagree with. It's childish and unproductive, and while I've personally respected Martin as a developer for a long time, I don't believe he's mature enough to be involved in the Rust for Linux effort (tbf, he's not the only Rust dev with this attitude). If the project fails, it will be because of this behavior, not because of the "old guys" being stubborn.
laymen who are not involved in the process in any way (on either side) acting like armchair experts and passing harsh judgement.
It doesn't matter what laymen say, so how can they be the problem?
This is why people like Martin feel justified going on social media to publicly complain, because they know they’ll get a bunch of yesmen with no credible arguments to mindlessly harrass the developers they disagree with.
Did Hector call people to action to harass the developers that "they disagree with"? Or did they try to promote awareness on the issue that is clearly causing them frustration? They certainly questioned whether or not there was another way besides shaming people on social media and it shows potential growth from my perspective.
If the project fails, it will be because of this behavior, not because of the “old guys” being stubborn.
Social media is another medium to express yourself and communicate ideas - it is neither good nor bad. If a project that is already developed pretty openly cannot address the criticism by social media/the public of their statements and behaviors, then perhaps they should privatize their communications. Or perhaps just address the criticisms in good faith and explain themselves in the spirit of open source.
Again, so much of the discussion around kernel mailing list exchanges excludes the context that what hellwig is talking about is not rust in the kernel at all or even r4l but a split code base.
I dealt with a c/c++ codebase once and it was beyond my meager abilities to handle both those ostensibly similar languages at the same time and I had people who were very knowledgeable in c involved with the project.
So when someone says “I think a split codebase is cancer to the Linux kernel” or “I will oppose this (split codebase) with all my energy” I’m like “yeah, that makes sense.”
I also need to clarify that I don’t think anyone is sabotaging anyone else and my intent in bringing up the simple field sabotage manual was to point out that the behaviors don’t necessarily indicate sabotage but fall into a broad category of behavior that isn’t gonna solve problems or get anywhere which is why it’s included in the manual.
I wasn’t aware it was circulating in social media recently and about fifteen years ago when I got exposed to it the main lessons to draw were not that people doing those things were active saboteurs but that those behaviors can lead to waste of energy and resources and they’re the first thing to avoid interacting with.
My exposure to and understanding of the manual was “here are some things to avoid in your own life” not “here’s how to throw a wrench into their plans!”
my take on the social media thing is that it basically amounts to creating an outside context problem. gathering the opinions of us plebs doesn't really matter because the kernel isn't developed by the masses, no matter what ESR thinks. the project is headed by Linus (and his "generals") and what they say goes. so riling up a bunch of nobodies that aren't fully aware of all the requirements there are on the kernel will amount to brigading no matter how well-meaning the mob is.
the LKML exists and is public specifically because they don't want to deal with fielding questions from people on social media. they want to field questions from people who care enough to read it.
actually, they did try using social media for a while. unfortunately they chose google plus.
I don't think the R4L project is for naught or is impeding progress. I see their good faith and their efforts. A split codebase can just be chopped off at the base and business can move on as usual at any point.
If Linux kernel maintainers are against potential improvements being found to the existing C code as a result of parallel development, then perhaps they should require the Rust developers to suggest what the added/changed code could look like in C (if possible) and their reasons for changing the implementation in Rust before they can push their implementation (forcing R4L to shoulder the brunt of the work) - or force R4L to stick to close-approximations and working within the existing system to properly change existing functionality through established processes.
I apologize that I misrepresented his arguments, I of course meant to say that his problem was a split codebase and I understood as much, I just misspoke. Other comments have enlightened me to better understand his arguments and concerns since I posted, as well.
You: [...] have been generally trying to jam their code everywhere
I suppose your earlier statement was just stuck in my head, and I was wondering to what extent they have "infected" the codebase with Rust.
And I learned about the manual when a creator I was linked was talking about how there are parallels between the manual and the decline/failure of the U.S. education system, but I similarly disagreed with them that the issues of the U.S. education system are due to internal or external sabotage (through any methods described in the manual, whether intentional sabotage or not) or anything close to it. This was before Trump.
If I were a maintainer in that position I’d be barring the doors too. It’s not a driver for some esoteric realtek wireless card or something.
This effectively kills R4L. If they can't include Rust Interfaces for important subsystems, each driver written in Rust that uses these subsystems has to separately track all the Subsystem Interfaces, leading to lots of extra work for no benefit.
If this is the approach Linux takes, they should just cancel R4L completely.
so it was! cool!
i will admit i'm not very well versed in rust, the only time i've used it was in like 2016, in an embedded context where there were hard restrictions on what could be used. no crates, no macros, no traits, no threading, and a very limited number of functions. procedural style, basically. someone else chose the wrong language and i just had to work within the system.
if the language is stable, i'm assuming the instability issues come from external crates? or are they just made up?
I don’t think that rust in the kernel is for naught or impeding progress. I think the patterns of expanding the scope of conversation to the absolutely philosophical level that some rust mailing list exchanges have done and kicking decisions up the chain or requesting a set of accommodations be made to the existing processes and methods fall broadly into the tactics outlined in the simple field sabotage manual.
I think it’s that behavior that isn’t going to get anywhere or solve problems.
I don’t think that the kernel codebase has been infected with rust. I think that especially after Linus said “sure, see what happens” to the suggestion of taking in rust work rust devs have been making tons of commits and sometimes it’s accepted, sometimes it’s rejected and often a border is created and there’s friction along it like this example.
Hellwig could have been more tactful, but like it or not, arguments against a cross-language codebase have merit. Framing it as a ‘clear confession of sabotage of the r4l project’, attempting to weaponize the CoC, and trying to drum up an army via social media was all out of line.
When a maintainer calls somebody's efforts "cancer" -- "spreading this cancer to core subsystems" -- and that they'll do everything they can to halt those efforts -- "I will do everything I can do to stop this" -- that's as clear an indication of sabotage as you will ever get.
like this
Dessalines likes this.
I don't care about age, if your sharp - your sharp. Old guys where more describing those in charge not wanting to let anyone in who doesn't do things like they do. Just thought "old guards" sounded so... lame.
Seen this a bounch of times in other projects and it ends up with good ambitious people leaving. Young blood that in the long run is needed to keep a project like this alive.
Except you're wrong about them wanting to put Rust code in the DMA subtree. As per the article linked below by M1ch431:
In a message to the Linux kernel mailing list, Hellwig wrote: "No Rust code in kernel/dma, please." For what it's worth, the patch added code to the rust/kernel portion of the Linux source tree, not kernel/dma, as far as we can tell.
All they were doing is adding an abstraction layer, within the already existing Rust code, so that rust drivers could communicate with the C DMA code in a uniform and predictable manner. It would have put far more work on maintainers, both C and Rust alike, to have each and every driver implement its own abstraction to the DMA API. Issues would have been/will be filed against the kernel/dma subtree in error due to issues with these myriad abstraction layers.
linux/rust/kernel at master · torvalds/linux
Linux kernel source tree. Contribute to torvalds/linux development by creating an account on GitHub.GitHub
The BDFL model, as it's called, is what allows large projects to continue to have focused vision rather than devolving into design-by-committee. The kernel is actually already well beyond pure BDFL, but my point is having a single point of overall leadership can be a huge boon for the organization of large and complex projects. FOSS philosophy has literally nothing to do with management structure; it's entirely about the rights of the end user.
BDFL is not without its own risks. WordPress is a good counterexample these days. But, when someone originates a project and sticks around to steer it, it would be silly to reject their proven successful leadership for such a vague reason as you have presented.
When things do go sideways, people are free to fork the project. That is what FOSS is.
Nobody asked for the code to be maintained by DMA. The maintainer blocked a PR outside his subsystem, and even if it was part of his subsystem, the R4L approach is that C developers can break Rust code however they want.
Literally nobody suggested that the DMA maintainers should maintain Rust code.
They were trying to merge rust code into the dma subsystem, because what they were working on needed to talk to it, and it would be easier to do that with rust code in the dma subsystem. He said no specifically to that part. Just the stuff in the dma subsystem. That's all. It can be worked around.
It wasn't actually a big deal until Martin stuck his nose into a discussion that was none of his business and then cried about it on social media. I get being frustrated. The old guys are weirdly hostile sometimes, but creating drama is not the solution.
You and i read different things.
Apparently we did.
I hated how he worded them, but his arguments at greppable and understandable are valid arguments that go beyond rust and if he can read it or not or refuses to.
I'm failing to see how Rust code is not greppable unless you don't speak Rust.
Mixing languages in a part of a project brings complexity and is often a huge ass nono because it makes things unreadable and hard to manage on a large scale.
An argument which I would acknowledge, but if the decision to do this has been made by the group it still is weird to see it blocked by an individual.
He also argues that a c interface exists to connect 2 parts of a system. The person that changes the interface should not have to alter the users of that interface, [...] So if he changes the interface, the rust team will need to fix it, specially since they are the minority.
Nobody asked Hellwig to do this, in fact Krummrich said several times they would maintain the interface consuming the C code themselves. They just want one common interface for all Rust drivers, instead of replicating the same code in each driver. Which Hellwig never gives a substantial reply to.
That also doesnt mean he can change it in whatever way without worry, it is an interface change, that needs discussions and approvals ahead of time ofc.
Again not how I'm reading that thread. As Krummrich put it:
Surely you can expect maintainers of the Rust abstraction to help with integrating API changes -- this isn't different compared to driver / component maintainers helping with integrating fundamental API changes for their affected driver / component, like you've mentioned videobuf2-dma stuff.
My gut tells me that any benefits of adding Rust is massively negated by the addition of a second language.
If one wants to write Rust, there is always Redox and probably a bunch of other kernels.
I like Rust, but it's for sure an over hyped language. In a year or two, people will push for Zig, Mojo or some new pure and polished functional low level language. Maybe a Scheme or a Lisp? That seems to be what the cool kids use nowadays.
Or maybe we'll just replace the kernel with an AI that generates machine code according with what should be your intention.
C'mon man, this is just a textbook fallacious slippery slope argument. Rust isn't some brand new language whose stable release was less than a year ago, it's over a decade old now. Scheme and Lisp are interpreted languages for God's sake, it's *borderline** impossible to use them for kernel programming.
Also I'm pretty sure the whole point of the Rust project that all this drama is centered around is to keep Rust code separate from the kernel. From what I understand the whole point is to maintain Rust bindings to the kernel API as a separate project, so that if developers want to write a driver in Rust, they can without having to rewrite those bindings themselves. But the kernel code itself will still be all C code. Now I'm not a kernel developer, and the last time I wrote a driver was for my operating systems class in university over a decade ago, so take that with a grain of salt.
* I say borderline because anything is possible with code if you're creative enough, but anyone trying to submit Scheme or Lisp code to the Linux kernel is gonna get laughed off the Internet
I don't think you get my point.
Of course I don't mean that you should introduce Lisp or Scheme into the Linux kernel. However, I don't rule out anything when it comes to the future of programming. Kernel programming isn't that special. If you need to make a scheduler, dynamic memory manager or an interpreter, as part of the kernel, because it solves your problem, you do it. Maybe you want the kernel to generate thread optimised FPGA and micro code on the fly? And this is done with some kind of interpreter. Who knows.
My point is that it's probably a bad idea introduce any new language into the kernel. A new backwards compatible version of memory safe c might be a good idea though. If it can be done.
Haven't touched the Linux kernel in 10+ years, but my guess is that a good approach is to write a new micro kernel in Rust. One that is compatible with most existing drivers and board support packages. And of course it has to maintain the userspace ABI and POSIX yada yada. Probably what the Redox project aims for, but I don't know.
Keeping the Rust bindings in a separate project might be unnecessary though. I'm sceptic about allowing upstream drivers written in Rust just because I find that there is such a great value in sticking to one language. I also know that many kernel developers are getting old and it gets harder to learn new languages the older you get. Especially if the language comes with a decent share of sugar and bling (the minimalism of lisp and c is valuable).
If there is a problem finding driver developers that want to write C code, then sure. But breaking the flow of the senior maintainers/developers likely isn't worth it. Unless they ask for it.
And also, I really haven't been following this Rust in the Linux kernel debate.
Any language containing eval in its spec cannot be (fully) compiled ahead of time, you'll need interpretation or JIT.
Also last I checked (it's been a while) Racket compiles to bitcode and then links in a bitcode interpreter. There's static lisp/scheme compilers but when they come across an eval, they're going to bail and compile in a JIT compiler or interpreter to deal with that stuff.
There's plenty of schemes that aren't fully standards-compliant but I don't think leaving out eval is common -- it's easy to implement and nothing about the standard says that it needs to run code fast.
Just wanted to point out that eval is the real static vs dynamic boundary. As to evil, sure, you shouldn't run just any code you find without having a sandbox in place, C's way to do the same thing is to call cc followed by dlopen, that's way scarier, which is why people just link in lua or something instead. I guess in you should probably include a wasm runtime instead of using dlopen.
My point is simply that it's probably not worth it to add another language. Doesn't have anything to do with Rust really.
Though I do think that the language is a bit over hyped. It's obvious companies and projects used to say they're using Rust, not just because they want to attract young developers or like the language, but because it's a way to get VC. Like AI and blockchain.
I do like Rust. But mostly because it encourages functional style programming. And the tooling is of course awesome. Especially compared to C and C++. However, I do believe that static pure functional languages are superior to Rust.
It’s a duplication of functionality in kernel/dma.
That’s why the submitter didn’t say “I didn’t submit to kernel/dma, checkmate libs!”.
The intent is to duplicate functionality in kernel/dma then get it included directly or linked to.
That’s what the r4l project is trying to do explicitly!
Before you say that kernel/dma didn’t have functional easy to use rust bindings, so the commit couldn’t have duplicated functionality: someone on kernel/dma said they didn’t want that and suggested using the c bindings instead which is what every other language has to do. Which means there was already a solution that was functional.
It’s like if there’s a community bicycle and you bring your drill and tap set so you can mount your bottle caddy and the community says “please don’t make a hole we have to tig in. Just use a pipe strap.” The right answer isn’t to start building a whole new down tube you can tap for an m5 for your bottle caddy, it’s to just use a pipe strap for your bottle caddy.
I didn’t read the linked article (or any linked article about this) because I’ve been reading the mailing list. Reporting on the kernel and people’s behavior on the list is tiring and often includes a bunch of baseless speculation.
BSD was the main open source option for a little while, but got into a big legal battle that dragged out for years, and Linux came out during that time and took over. BSD never made a major comeback because no one really needed it anymore after Linux came along. It's still around because it was already done, so people have just had to maintain and update it since then. Hurd is non-existent for reasons that are contentious, but everyone agrees that at least one of them is that a lot of people got excited about the Linux kernel and lost interest in Hurd and switched to Linux development instead. It is possible that if more people had stuck with it there would have been a real, useful Hurd instead. These aren't even the only alternatives that were being worked on at the time.
The idea that any one person could will an entire operating system into existence by making a hobby kernel that fit a useful niche at the right time is just patently absurd. Linux is great, and Linus Torvalds is a good steward of it, but no, he is not the only reason why open source operating systems are popular.
Rust has affine types and gets close to linear when you include #[must_use] (you can still let _ = foo but at least it won't be an accident, also, drop code isn't guaranteed to run and there's good reasons for that), refinement types there's a library for that. GADTs... I mean sure trait magic can get annoying and coming from Haskell you'd want to do more in the type system but in the end the idiomatic rust way to do many of those things is with macros. Which, unlike Haskell, Rust actually is really good at. Really good. Tack refinement types onto the language kind of good.
Proving tools, honestly, there's only one piece of actually proven software (SeL4) and the only language it's really written in is Coq. Which Rust will never, ever, compete with on its home turf.
Fork. Setting up a whole new project infrastructure, getting fellow developers on board with your putsch and everything can be a PITA but all those are natural hurdles, due to how the licensing works the BDFL has no way to stop you.
As such, as a BDFL you rule by the grace of authority of the bootmaker. If you don't make sense, if you aren't respected, sooner than later the community is going to leave you behind.
- Can’t do it
- Requires library, not built-in
- Can’t do it
- Can’t do it
Not sure why Haskell is being invoked—several languages have GADTs & macros.
Why Has the BBC Been Receiving Money From CIA-Front USAID? One Journalist Wants Answers.
BBC Media Action should be investigated over USAID funding
USAID has played the role of the 'friendly face' of US imperialism - and now, BBC Media Action has been found to be complicit in thisEd Sykes (The Canary)
As an independent charity, we are not directly funded by the BBC License Fee. Our vital work relies on our donors - governments, foundations, corporations and individuals. Donate today to support our mission.
There doesn't seem to be anything secretive or untoward happening here. What is he even alleging?
Meet the BBC's international charity
We are BBC Media Action - we believe in media and communication for goodwww.bbc.co.uk
It's not just USAID. The BBC is actually funded by two branches of the US government.Last year, the US State Department gave BBC Media Action £280,000.
The group says it used the $$$ to reach 100 million people in 24 countries with its programmes.
After covering the BBC's public relations response, the article then goes on to say:
That sounds nice, of course. But when you’re aware of the role USAID has played as the ‘friendly face’ of US imperialism, more scrutiny of BBC Media Action is essential.
What I took away from it is that since the BBC is affiliated with this blatant US corruption, regardless of directly or indirectly, the specifics regarding the association needs to be known by the public.
Sure, maybe on paper...but check this out:
scheerpost.com/2025/02/01/did-…
Regardless, why is the only aspect of USAID which was "forked" into a Trump approved department specific for coup's? Makes you think which, with nothing but love, is something it seems you should do more of when it comes to US policy.
Did a Trump Executive Order Just Cripple the Global US Regime Change Network?
With federal funding paused to USAID, pro-Western media outlets from Ukraine to Nicaragua are panhandling for donations, and a multi-billion dollar regime change apparatus is in panic mode.scheerpost.com
Given Ukraine’s near-total economic destruction since its proxy war against Russia erupted in February 2022...
The phrasing of this sentence is just one example of pro-Russia propaganda in an article filled with it. Of course the US spins messages and creates its own propaganda, every country does this. It's important to be able to see through spin to evaluate facts, but blindly eating up the propaganda of other nations just because you don't like the story the US is telling is not a great take.
Related note: There are some good vegan eggs out there to give a try!
If you want something that cooks and bakes like eggs there's stuff you can by like Just Egg
For baking there's a million things you can use that are pretty cheap. For instance, Aquafaba is the leftover water from cooking chickpeas or the water in the can if you buy it canned. Acts like egg whites and can be used as a binder for baking
i was just wondering if people would forget they can make an egg post.
who killed all the chickens?
We've literally seen name brand eggs here in the southeast USA going for $11.99 for a dozen, literally a dollar each!
That's where my meme started, I had $1 wrote on the eggs three times around, but later I decided to add some zeroes so they would have $1, $10, and $100 written around them, depending on which way they're turned in the package.
We ain't paying near that much for cheaper non name brand eggs, last we got was $6.87 for 18 eggs, a dozen and a half. Much better deal, but still quite a bit higher than it used to be.
bewbcoin
….
C’mon. I couldn’t have been the only immature person to notice or think that.
Eggs don't have nipples homie.
Well, not yet anyways, genetic engineers are working on it though...
Train your own R1 reasoning model with Unsloth
Unsloth introduces reasoning capabilities in their platform using Group Relative Policy Optimization. GRPO allows users to transform standard models into reasoning models locally with as little as 7GB VRAM. Previously, GRPO was only supported for full fine-tuning, but now it works with QLoRA and LoRA.
It optimizes responses efficiently without requiring a value function, unlike Proximal Policy Optimization. Use cases for GRPO include creating customized models with rewards or generating reasoning processes for input-output data.
that one gives off old man vibes; it's needs be younger and more chad like xi's:
maybe lenin would work better?
don't like this
Dessalines doesn't like this.
don't like this
Dessalines doesn't like this.
And your warped beliefs demonstrate a profound lack of compassion and a complete misunderstanding of the real world. Only one of us needs to learn from history right now, and it sure a shit ain't me. Thanks for destroying some of the very little hope in humanity I've got left by defending literal, actual genocide.
I'm not about to waste time convincing anyone that you (and any worthless fuck that agrees with you) are a massive fucking idiot, but I genuinely hope you learn your lesson someday and grow as a person. Though, seeing as you're about to refuse to listen or learn a damn thing, I'm sure you'll get to experience some of this shit first hand with the way the political world is currently capsizing.
- Domenico Losurdo, 2008, Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend
- Grover Furr, 2014, Blood Lies: The Evidence that Every Accusation against Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union in Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands Is False
Bloodlies : Grover Furr : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
This is a book from written by Professor Grover Furr that goes through and Thoroughly debunks all of the Anti-Communist Myths and Accusations that were made in...Internet Archive
Thank you for contributing the same shit we hear from literal nazis from nazi germany
jewishcurrents.org/the-double-…
The "Double Genocide" Theory
Breaking news, analysis, art, and culture from a progressive Jewish perspective. Sign up for our newsletter!Jewish Currents
Yes they murdered invading nazis.
"We have liberated Europe from fascism, but they will never forgive us for it." - Marshal Zhukov
like this
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ likes this.
like this
Dessalines likes this.
Regardless of one's view on Stalin, I don't think it's accurate to say he destroyed democracy within the Soviet Union. The Soviets, both during Stalin and after Stalin (and before) had a form of democracy called "Soviet Democracy." It was focused on electing delegates to serve at higher councils, called "Soviets." See this graphic for how it functioned:
Also read Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan if you are further interested.
The early USSR policies built strong socialists foundations, without a highly developed industry to produce material wealth there is no possibility of a socialist future, only of an abundance of povery.
This "destroyed any hope of a socialist democracy" comes from the mislead idealists that wanted the "war communism" implemented during the civil war to continue, which would've lead to a catastrophe of gargantuan proportions a couple of decades later with the invasion of Nazi Germany.
"Core of American Freedom Propaganda" - Soviet Poster, 1973
"In America, there is freedom
For those who strangle the people.
But the working people there
Are “free” from freedom."
Dessalines likes this.
The Soviets would have known: it takes one to know one.
Having said that, the message was correct, even though the messenger wasn't exactly in a position of higher moral authority.
Dessalines doesn't like this.
The Soviet union was absolutely in a position of higher moral authority having been the champion of actual tangible human rights. Learn some history so as not make a clown of yourself in public. The Soviet Union was a leader in human rights, particularly in advancing women's liberation and supporting decolonial movements. The USSR set significant precedents for progressive social policies.
Here are just a few examples. The USSR implemented a system of free education accessible to all citizens, regardless of gender or class. Women were encouraged to participate in politics and professional fields, challenging traditional gender roles. USSR was first to enact policies ensuring equal pay for equal work, provided maternity leave and free childcare, and promoted gender equality and support working families. A comprehensive healthcare system was established, providing free or low-cost medical services to all citizens. The USSR undertook large-scale housing projects to address the post-WWII housing shortage, providing affordable and state-provided housing options for millions of citizens. Pensions, disability benefits, and other social safety nets were introduced to support elderly individuals, those unable to work, and families in need. The government supported cultural activities and arts, ensuring that all citizens had access to cultural events and education, promoting inclusivity and enriching social life. The Soviets actively supported anti-colonial movements and advocated for decolonization, providing assistance to newly independent nations and participating in international human rights efforts.
Dessalines likes this.
The Soviet union absolutely in a position of higher moral authority
I stopped reading right there.
One acronym: GULAG.
Dessalines doesn't like this.
You tankies are seriously messed up in the brain. It's quite amazing the amount of patently crazy history rewriting and BS you lot can spew out without flinching.
Hint: saying "you are proof that gulags are necessary" under any circumstances puts you in the same category of despicables as neo-Nazis, and a total waste of oxygen.
Dessalines doesn't like this.
Dessalines likes this.
Idiots advocating murderous concentration camps and wishing people where imprisoned and died in them can be found left and right of the political spectrum. They're not the same thing, but they have three things in common:
- They like dictactorships and things that dictatorships do, whether it's a fascist of communist dictatorship.
- They don't know history, or cherry-pick what suits their crazy narrative.
- They're nauseating.
And you're one of them.
The only horseshoe here is the one that obviously hit you in the head when you walked behind the horse and it reared, probably.
don't like this
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ and Dessalines don't like this.
Dessalines likes this.
Dessalines doesn't like this.
Dessalines likes this.
I lived in the Soviet Union
I'm sure you did.
The only people I met who lived in the Soviet Union who missed it after its disappearance were military, police, and civil servants. They were treated fairly well. Either you were one of them, or - more likely - you have vivid dreams.
you clearly don’t want to hear what I have to say.
Indeed I don't.
Dessalines doesn't like this.
You don't have to take my word for it dullard, you can go read about how people who lived in USSR feel now that they got a taste of the alternative.
A remarkable 72% of Hungarians say that most people in their country are actually worse off today economically than they were under communism. Only 8% say most people in Hungary are better off, and 16% say things are about the same. In no other Central or Eastern European country surveyed did so many believe that economic life is worse now than during the communist era. This is the result of almost universal displeasure with the economy. Fully 94% describe the country's economy as bad, the highest level of economic discontent in the hard hit region of Central and Eastern Europe. Just 46% of Hungarians approve of their country's switch from a state-controlled economy to a market economy; 42% disapprove of the move away from communism. The public is even more negative toward Hungary's integration into Europe; 71% say their country has been weakened by the process.
The most incredible result was registered in a July 2010 IRES (Romanian Institute for Evaluation and Strategy) poll, according to which 41% of the respondents would have voted for Ceausescu, had he run for the position of president. And 63% of the survey participants said their life was better during communism, while only 23% attested that their life was worse then. Some 68% declared that communism was a good idea, just one that had been poorly applied.
Glorification of the German Democratic Republic is on the rise two decades after the Berlin Wall fell. Young people and the better off are among those rebuffing criticism of East Germany as an "illegitimate state." In a new poll, more than half of former eastern Germans defend the GDR.
A poll shows that as many as 81 per cent of Serbians believe they lived best in the former Yugoslavia -"during the time of socialism". The survey focused on the respondents' views on the transition "from socialism to capitalism", and a clear majority said they trusted social institutions the most during the rule of Yugoslav communist president Josip Broz Tito. The standard of living during Tito's rule from the Second World War to the 1980s was also assessed as best, whereas the Milosevic decade of the 1990s, and the subsequent decade since the fall of his regime are seen as "more or less the same". 45 percent said they trusted social institutions most under communism with 23 percent choosing the 2001-2003 period when Zoran Djinđic was prime minister. Only 19 per cent selected present-day institutions.
75% of Russians have expressed increasingly positive opinions about the Soviet Union over the years. Only a small portion of those surveyed said they had negative associations with the Soviet Union. The economic deficit, long lines and coupons were named by 4% of respondents each, while the Iron Curtain, economic stagnation and political repressions were named by 1% each, the Levada Center said.
- Former Soviet Countries See More Harm From Breakup
That's the real world as opposed to your deranged fantasies.
75% of Russians Say Soviet Era Was 'Greatest Time' in Country’s History – Poll
Three out of four Russians think the Soviet era was the best time in their country’s history, according to a survey published by the independent Levada Center pollster on Tuesday.The Moscow Times
Dessalines likes this.
Physicists Accidentally Found a New Way to Represent Pi
Physicists Accidentally Found a New Way to Represent Pi : ScienceAlert
Our favorite mathematical constant, pi (π), describing the ratio between a circle's circumference and its diameter, has taken on new meaning.Clare Watson (ScienceAlert)
The findings are purely theoretical at this stage, but could have some practical uses.
Interesting conceptually but nothing to see here
If they were. (As unlikely as that seems)
Actually stating so would be the best way to prevent having to do so. That is what bothers me about media asking world leaders this. All they are doing is giving a war criminal a list of safe and unsafe nations to visit. Surely any nation that was seriose about wanting to arrest him. Would remain silent about it.
The Anatomy of Chinese Characters
Learn Chinese Characters | The Chinese Language Institute
Understand Chinese characters and reveal the building blocks of the world's most spoken language. We welcome you to learn Chinese characters with CLI.The CLI Team (Chinese Language Institute)
Thank you. I've a polyglot friend who recently said they would be interested in learning Chinese. Is Mandarin more predominantly spoken than Sichuanese?
Edit NVM Google says about 65% of the populace speaks Mandarin.
Question: Can I use dd to clone my luks encrypted lvm os drive?
EDIT WITH UPDATE: Operation went off without a hitch! I'm now up and running with the 512GB nvme drive! Next stop is dual booting nixos, which was the whole reason for switching to the larger drive.
ORIGINAL POST:
I’ve got a laptop running Arch (btw), with a 128GB nvme in it. The nvme has two partitions. EFI boot, and a luks encrypted lvm.
I’ve got a 512GB nvme I want to swap in. I think I can clone the device with dd, update the uuids, expand the lvm, and drop in the 512 nvme, but my searching hasn't given me a clear confirmation of this. Am I correct in my thought process, or am I setting myself up for disaster?
Squiddlioni likes this.
/dev/nvme0n1 directly, but use device aliases in /dev/disk/. I prefer /dev/disk/by-id/ but maybe another works better in your case.# find all aliases for nvme drives (no partitions)
find /dev/disk/ -type l -ilname '*nvme?n?' -printf '%l %p\n' | sed 's!^../../!!' | sort
by-id. The whole operation went off without a hitch. I'm up and running with my new 512GB nvme!
Look into pvmove. I'd take a backup with dd but try to do the actual move with pvmove. This might involve multiple steps if you can't have both nvme's installed at the same time. In that case I hope you have other drives.
Edit: I think what you're doing won't be a disaster because you're not writing anything to the old nvme so that data is still there. So you won't bork anything if the new drive doesn't work.
I'll take a look at pvmove.
I can't have both installed. Plan is to dd the 128 nvme to a USB SSD I have, then dd the SSD to the 512 once it's installed in the laptop. All the xloning will be done by booting a USB ISO so no drives are in active use while being cloned.
I suspect your plan might be safer and less of a pain than pvmove. I've just never done that before so I can't say for sure.
Be sure you can open and mount the USB ssd after the first dd. Also check the status of the disk size of the luks container. I'm assuming your dd'ing the encrypted partition not the data inside.
Thanks. I’ll stick with dd then. You are correct, I think. I plan to dd the whole disk. The plan is:
dd if=/dev/nvme0n1 of=/dev/sdb bs=4M status=progress oflag=sync
unless that's the wrong idea. once the usb ssd is done I will definitely check the luks container on the ssd. Size and data availability.
I recently read that luks containers don't actually know their size they will always adapt to the size of the entire disk (it makes shrinking them dangerous). So you should be good unless your SSD is bigger than your new nvme.
Very curious about how this goes. It might not work but it won't wipe the original nvme. I'd love to hear how it goes.
fstab, and booted straight up!
Serpent OS is facing funding challenges but development continues.
cross-posted from: lemm.ee/post/54845927
TL;DR: Serpent OS is facing funding challenges but development continues. Alpha2 is coming soon with an improved installer. We’re seeking community support through donations and volunteers for key roles. Our technical roadmap includes versioned repositories, immutable OS features, and improved package management workflows.
We had a flurry of activity around the Christmas period, including our first alpha release as well as enabling offline rollbacks early in January. We’re actively working on alpha2, but we also need to talk about the elephant in the room.
SerpentOS is it's own thing. It's from the same guy who made Solus which was also it's own thing.
Look up Ikey Doherty if you want to know more.
From my experience with Solus, I don't have high hopes for SerpentOS but I'd love to be wrong about that
🚀 Big news from Serpent OS: State of the Project 2025 · serpent-os · Discussion #31
• Alpha2 coming soon with improved installer • Seeking community support & key contributors • Technical roadmap revealed: versioned repos, immutable OS features & more https://serpentos.com/blog/20...GitHub
Army was ordered to kill Israelis on 7 October, defense minister confirms
Army was ordered to kill Israelis on 7 October, defense minister confirms
Hannibal orders "tactically" issued, Yoav Gallant admits.The Electronic Intifada
Hasn't the IDF, at this point, killed more Israelis than Hamas has?
Seriously, wtf is going on with these people
Dessalines likes this.
Seriously, wtf is going on with these people
Religious fundamentalism and lust for power.
It has everything to do with it, this entire thing is about them being the chosen people by God and what not.
Religion: the easiest way to control and manipulate entire countries for over two millennia now
Hungarian firm to supply gas to Moldova's Transdniestria region
like this
dandi8 likes this.
Issues reaching lemmy.ca now
Howdy folks!
Looking for a bit of help here. Im fairly new to Lemmy but have been enjoying it quite a bit! Something has happened today where on my desktop I can no longer reach lemmy.ca I can access lemmy.ca/u/punchshark no problems. I checked my outbound rules in my firewall and cannot find anything that it is blocked. Anyone ever experience this at all?
like this
Fitik likes this.
New Awesome Windows List
An awesome & curated list of tools and apps for Windows 10/11. - 0PandaDEV/awesome-windows
GitHub - 0PandaDEV/awesome-windows: An awesome & curated list of tools and apps for Windows 10/11.
An awesome & curated list of tools and apps for Windows 10/11. - 0PandaDEV/awesome-windowsGitHub
don't like this
Dessalines doesn't like this.
reshared this
Open Source reshared this.
Great list, but what the hell are these doing there?
Cloud Storage
- Dropbox - Syncs files across devices with version history.
- Google Drive - Enables real-time collaboration on Google Docs, Sheets and Slides.
- OneDrive - Integrates with Microsoft Office for document collaboration.
What I assume the commenter meant is that Beeper was bought by Automattic, which also owns Wordpress and whose CEO is Matt Mullenweg. Recently Mullenweg has been on a vendetta against WPEngine from benefiting from Wordpress, and basically sabotaging Wordpress to spite WPEngine. This article details the beef.
That being said, I use Beeper (and Pocket Casts, also owned by Automattic) and enjoy them a bunch. I haven't noticed any issues since April, and the whole Wordpress vs. WPEngine seems to not affect Beeper.
The WordPress vs. WP Engine drama, explained | TechCrunch
This story has been updated throughout with more details as the story has developed. We will continue to do so as the case and dispute are ongoing. TheIvan Mehta (TechCrunch)
I had even forgotten that.
I can't fucking stand that piece of shit Eric Migicovsky. He fucked a bunch of the workers at Pebble on his way out, selling it to Fitbit, and then leaving them hanging when they were promised their jobs were part of the sale.
His whole Beeper breaking into iMessage and then trying to make it work for three days and then just giving up after it became clear Apple was going to fight it. It reeked of complete lack of planning or consideration of the ramifications.
Finally, they never took privacy seriously, and I learned that the hard way during my onboarding in the first year they released. Suffice to say, I bowed out of the onboarding because of their lack of communication and lack of respect for user privacy.
Now he wants back in on Pebble since it got open sourced. He's building another new company and telling people to join.
I'm sick of this asshole fucking failing upward and fucking everyone each time he does.
But yes, Mullenweg super sucks, too. So it was created by an asshat, ran by an asshat, and then sold to another asshat.
Manchester theatre suspends Dolly Parton musical over homophobic abuse
Manchester theatre suspends Dolly Parton musical over homophobic abuse
Actor in Here You Come Again says cast left stage because ‘a woman was so disgusted there was a gay character’Nadeem Badshah (The Guardian)
like this
MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown likes this.
I think people like this need to be immediately referred to behavior health specialists. They are clearly in need of some serious healing. Regardless of how you feel, you don't need to be a horrible human AND ruin things for others.
Why can't they just be horrible humans... quietly?
like this
andyburke, WadeTheWizard and dandi8 like this.
yahoo.com/entertainment/claim-…
like this
dandi8 likes this.
Whilst these incidents are rare, we have a zero-tolerance policy to bullying, harassment, or any form of abusive behaviour towards our cast, crew, or staff. Anyone engaging in such conduct will be removed from the venue immediately.
Uh, so why did the cast have to walk out and end the show? Drag the bigot out to the street: problem solved. The show must go on.
iAmTheTot
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ • • •IninewCrow
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ • • •From one point of view, I don't think the US will ever want to take over Canada. They own us already and our resources, our corporations and businesses and I don't think they want to the expense of running our country. They have our money and resources, it would just cost them more to run manage us.
From another point of view, if they do want to take us over with military force and occupy us .... that is even more expensive and difficult to implement and manage. How much do you think it would cost to have thousands of troops, officials and military run around Canada to keep us 'under control'.
It's a business decision and our Canadian leadership being such whores to money, it's just cheaper to keep us under a leash and keep us at arms length, while doing whatever they want with us anyway.
like this
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ likes this.
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
in reply to IninewCrow • • •zephorah
in reply to IninewCrow • • •zephorah
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ • • •Trump is one of those fantastical idiots who isn’t an idiot. He’s not going to annex Canada. It’s part of the brute force strength show to make the executive branch the only branch. Shock and Awe among all the details we are actually being made aware of. For everything we know, there’s at least 3 things we don’t know. What you need to ask is, why is this a headline?
Interest in Greenland and Yukon is something we’ve all explored over on Reddit. A mad rush to gather and exploit what’s under the ice when it melts. Many of you guys proposed it would be the spark of WW3. (They simply have to ignore the acknowledgement of global warming in this, because it may mess up their political agenda.) If anything, this ends with an annex of part of what’s under that ice.
Remember, Trump has never been interested in the United States or the US Constitution, only in how to be king. This is part of why prior 2016-2020 staff call him a fascist.
What I do think was more of a gaffe that probably had his people gesticulating wildly off
... show moreTrump is one of those fantastical idiots who isn’t an idiot. He’s not going to annex Canada. It’s part of the brute force strength show to make the executive branch the only branch. Shock and Awe among all the details we are actually being made aware of. For everything we know, there’s at least 3 things we don’t know. What you need to ask is, why is this a headline?
Interest in Greenland and Yukon is something we’ve all explored over on Reddit. A mad rush to gather and exploit what’s under the ice when it melts. Many of you guys proposed it would be the spark of WW3. (They simply have to ignore the acknowledgement of global warming in this, because it may mess up their political agenda.) If anything, this ends with an annex of part of what’s under that ice.
Remember, Trump has never been interested in the United States or the US Constitution, only in how to be king. This is part of why prior 2016-2020 staff call him a fascist.
What I do think was more of a gaffe that probably had his people gesticulating wildly off camera was letting people know pre 2024 election this would be the last time they’d ever have to vote.
freagle
in reply to zephorah • • •birdcat
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ • • •CrimeDad
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ • • •