• Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    2 days ago

    How is it licensed, Jigsaw? Eh? What distro is it from? Is that a fucking Snap wheel?

      • Blackmist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        What I hadn’t anticipated in my 20 years away from Linux was not only had teams of unpaid volunteers been beavering away behind the scenes to make everything work better, other much more enthusiastic teams have been thinking up new and exciting ways to break it again.

  • Rose@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re refering to as wheel, is in fact, GNU/Wheel, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus wheel.

  • Noxy@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 day ago

    but is it written in 6510 assembly, with cool graphics and catchy music with fast arpeggios?

  • iAvicenna@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    But my wheel will be much better. I will start from the center with a very simple skeleton and build on top of it as needed. It will be very modular, elegant and easy to understand. It will be my masterpiece.

  • Underwaterbob@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    The wheel has had a number of innovations over the years. The earliest wheels were flat disks of wood that were heavy and slow turning. The Romans invented spokes and metal rims which made them faster, more durable, and gave them more traction. Questions we need answered: What is this wheel in particular designed to do? Is there any way we could make it work more efficiently at its task? Do we value performance over reliability, or vice versa? Etc. Etc.

    • tempest@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 day ago

      I think we need to take a bit of a step back and consider what kind of shed we might use to store this wheel…

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        To answer that, we’ll need to do a deep dive into foundation technology (to determine if it is lacking and needs some improvements) (because we don’t want our wheelshed to sink).

    • Wolf@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      What is this wheel in particular designed to do? Is there any way we could make it work more efficiently at its task? Do we value performance over reliability, or vice versa?

      It works fine. It’s a perfectly good wheel.

      Hey where is Underwaterbob?

      He’s trapped in that Jigsaw room.

      The door is unlocked though?

      Yeah, but there is a wheel in there and UWB won’t leave until he figures out if there is a way to improve it.

      Has any one asked him to?

      No

      Will he get paid to improve it?

      No

      What does the wheel do?

      You roll it out of the way so you can exit the room.

    • Part4@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Yeah but neither the romans, or medieval peasants had computers, so why are you on about?

  • nthavoc@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    “But is it a just a wheel if we add cloud and AI features to it? Think of all the leveraging of paradigm shifts!” . The trap explodes taking everyone out; even Steve in accounting who had nothing to do with this and wasn’t even in the same building.

  • Zozano@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Spent months setting up my home server with Docker containers while learning Linux. Everything worked perfectly fine.

    Then I realised Ubuntu Server is just a Debian-flavored landfill. Switched to EndeavourOS. Everything worked perfectly fine.

    Then I made NixOS my daily driver and thought, “Hey, let’s ruin my weekend.” Migrated the server. Everything worked perfectly fine.

    Found out I could run containers as systemd services. Replaced Docker out of sheer spite using compose2nix. Everything worked perfectly fine.

    Then I heard btrfs was the bee’s knees. Reformatted my drives, migrated again, and spent a week learning why subvolumes are better than sex. Everything worked perfectly fine.

    Got a free MacBook. Slight hardware bump. Migrated again. Spent hours fighting T2 drivers while deepthroating Tim Apple’s cock. Everything worked perfectly fine.

    Rewrote every systemd service as NixOS modules. Why? Something something George Mallory. Everything still works perfectly fine.

    Did I ever notice a difference from the frontend? Nope.

    Was this a good use of my time? Fuck no.

    Did it need to happen? Does the pope compile from source in the woods?

    • tux7350@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      Im at the compose2nix phase of this pipeline. Ive got a bunch or sevices in Docker compose files and all of my systems have been running Nix for over a year now. Ive gotten the hang of my repo and made a couple modules for my specific uses and im hooked.

      What would you suggest to migrate all my compose files into a nix friendly environment? I use flakes as well.

    • Zoe@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      I mean it sounds like you just enjoy spending your time doing that sort of thing. I’d say that was a good use of your time if you wanted to do it, no?

    • BatmanAoD@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      135
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Hello, Rust developer. [My name, etc.] It works fine, and is written in C++. [Rest of challenge is the same.]

      Truly diabolical

    • pivot_root@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      49
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Look, I’m not saying the wheel is wrong. It rotates, but what if two people try to turn the wheel at the same time, in opposite directions?

      What if—instead of risking misuse of the wheel—we have a my_wheel::Wheel, which only one person can rotate at any given time? The multiverse could enforce this safety at compile time by making it impossible for there to exist a universe where two people both think they own the right to rotate the wheel. In fact, it could even make it impossible for me to lend out the wheel to more than one person at a time.

      And, maybe… we could make the wheel even better. Cars rest on top of wheels, sure. But what if I wanted to make a car that rests on top of other cars? If we rotate the super-car’s wheels, we don’t want to make the sub-cars flap around—we want the sub-car wheels to rotate. It would be more future-proof to make a Wheel trait, then to make RubberTyre implement Wheel. Then, if we ever needed to make cars into wheels, we could have them also implement Wheel—but delegate the responsibility of rotating to their own wheels.

      In fact, we should make it into a whole library. Our other projects could need wheels. Mr. Mittens might need them eventually!

    • Chloé 🥕@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      3 days ago

      Disclaimer: I have never actually written Rust.

      neither have most of the people advocating for (or against) rewriting stuff in Rust lol

      • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        3 days ago

        I’ll have you know, I’ve started several projects in Rust!

        Only to realize I don’t have time to do unpaid work even if it IS fun.

  • rumba@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    3 days ago

    We’d rather re-create reality where we know everything rather than taking the time to learn how to use a system someone else wrote.

    IT and DevOPS does this too.

    I worked with a group once that re-invented XML so that non-technical people could create text-based rules instead of writing code. But it ended up with a somewhat rigid naming structure with control characters and delimiters. The non technical people hated it more the actual XML they had used prior.

    • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      Re: the not-XML-instead-of-code thing. Eventually, this sort of thing turns into a programming language. It’s just like carcinisation. Or you wind up writing ever-more code to support the original design. The environment inevitably creates evolutionary pressure that only if/else and iteration logic can solve, forcing the design ever closer to being Turing-complete.

      • rumba@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 days ago

        LOL. not far off

        They started out with something close to YAML. As the project moved forward, they found out they needed to represent logic with interlinked sections. They needed section 3, point a to link back to section 1 point 3, sub point 2. So they toyed with some assembly-like operations. Then they needed some inheritance. They really just slowly re-implemented the common applications of xml one at a time, it just had less brackets and <> symbols when they were done.

        • ulterno@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          it just had less brackets and <> symbols when they were done.

          Hence making the parser more inefficient than XML?

          • rumba@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            It wasn’t without some advantage. The client hating it didn’t bode well though

            • floofloof@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 days ago

              The client hating it just means you’re smarter than them and should press on to help them outgrow their ignorance. It’s a good sign.

            • ulterno@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              YAML definitely felt less intimidating to me than XML, when I first saw them.
              But the YAML examples also had much less information in them than the XML ones.
              But not having to type all those brackets definitely helps. In case of XML, I am always looking to just get a GUI going for it instead, because typing it out feels cumbersome (I’m from C++)

    • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      I woulda tried them on JSON. As long as they use an editor that keeps track of nested brackets I think it’s much more natural than XML.

        • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          Wow, I never even heard of TOML. Very interesting - thanks!

          edit: after looking at it a bit I think I’ll actually try using it. But I find it ironic that the website for something billed as “for humans” and “easy to read” is done in light gray text on a white background. The CSS class they chose is even called “light gray” LOL.