Gayhitler

You can go ntfs -> qcow and put your windows in a vm. It sucks more to go qcow -> ext3 and put your Linux vm on a metal.

Just dual boot. It’s easy and it works and you have a little computer in your pocket to look shit up on if you’re scared about fucking anything up.

Before you dual boot: turn off fast startup in windows, turn off uhh bitlocker(?) and make sure your bios will let you.

Make a backup first, because you don’t have one now and if anything happens you’ll lose everything. Nothing will happen, nothing ever happens, but knowing you’re not fucked makes you feel more confident.

E: people will tell you to use a different ssd or whatever for Linux. That’s stupid and bad advice. Don’t do it. Just clear off some space on your boot device and use it.

E2: fixed a typo.

It’s the same thing.

Email even has its own version of federation and de federation in dkim.

The only difference is that you’re oftentimes not given access to an email address from your internet provider by default anymore so you’re not automatically joined into the system.

People balking at choosing a server are not showing you a bad user experience, they’re showing that they don’t really want to be part of a reddit alternative.

And the broader lemmy/activitypub/whatever needs to figure out if it wants to be like beehaw and hexbear and abandon the shape of reddit or if it wants to duplicate it and try to compete with reddit.

There’s a lot of arguments for one solution or the other based on security or privacy, but let me present a different scenario:

Imagine you’re in a natural disaster. Your home based self hosted server is down because of a general rolling network outage or just irrecoverably destroyed. Your offsite on the other side of the county is in a similar state. Can your cloud hosted backup be accessed at generic, public computer in a shelter or public building?

Bitwarden can. It has specific instructions for doing so as safely as possible.

Why are you considering degoogling?

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.

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.

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!”

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.

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”.

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.

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!

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250108122825.136021-1-abdiel.janulgue@gmail.com/

Here’s the source thread.

Tldr: someone wants to put rust in the dma part of the kernel (the part that accesses memory directly)(it’s a memory allocator abstraction layer written in rust which rust code can use directly instead of dealing with the c allocator abstraction layer), is told that rust should use the extant methods to talk to the c dma interface, replies that doing so would make rust programs that talk to dma require some more code, gets told “that’s fine. We can’t do a split codebase”. The two parties work towards some resolution, then hector martin comes in and acts like jerk and gets told to fuck off by Linus.

Martin is no lennart poettering but I don’t try to see things from his perspective anymore.

It’s worth noting that Linus’ “approval” of rust in the kernel isn’t generally seen as a blanket endorsement, but a willingness to see how it might go and rust people have been generally trying to jam their code everywhere using methods that rival the cia simple field sabotage manual.

I don’t think it’s on purpose (except for maybe Martin) but a byproduct of the kernel maintainers moving slowly but surely and the rust developers moving much faster and some seeing the solution to that slow movement as jamming their foot in the door and wedging it open.