Sbauer

Sure you can, happened many times in history. US independence, French Revolution, suffrage movement, civil rights movement. Elect radicals and they will change the system. But only if people wanted change, which they don’t.

People that want to get rid of billionaires, corporations in politics and people getting fairly represented are the minority. The majority want a wall on the border with Mexico, arming teachers or abortion rights and lgbtq rights etc. That’s what they care about. Highly controversial topics that ultimately change nothing about how the show is run.

The two candidates don’t come from nothing, there is primaries etc. My point is if people wanted change they could have change, but they actually don’t. Look what the French did to their monarchs and aristocrats when the people actually got fed up.

But step one is getting fed up, and most people ain’t fed up. They actually resist change, that’s why they go with the transparent lies the media and politicians feed them. They what minor change, not revolutionary change.

But thats just not true. Well maybe it's true for a country like china or north korea. But the rest of the world? We could elect people changing the system and there is nothing the 2k people could do. Sure they can influence elections to some degree, but if there was a true will for change? The reason the billionaires have so much power and protection is because a lot of people side with them and the system they support.

But again, the oligarchs ain't the problem. Getting rid of them just changes the ownership of the companies producing the pollution, what we need to do is change the companies and the way to do that is legislation. And that legislation is not supported by the majority of people. I mean look at east germany during the cold war if you don't believe me, not a single billionaire yet still horrible pollution. Billionaires don't cause pollution, people do.

The emissions from their investments ... thats the same as the emissions of your place of work or the emissions of the company you buy your stuff from. Lets blame that on an extremely small group of people instead of the billions of people who consume the products enabling them.

Anyway, the point is: if it works, then it’s good. Rust does not make Linux worse. If anything, it makes it better because it makes it more accessible to programmers who know Rust but not C. And that’s a good thing. It ensures the Linux kernel will be around longer than whomever ends up being the last C developer.

Nobody is going to rewrite the entire kernel in rust. Parts of it are still written in assembler. It’s well over 30 million lines of code, 60% of it drivers. You can’t just go and rewrite that in a different language, hell it doesn’t even compile on the wrong C compiler version. You would need access to the hardware and run tests for every module you change at least or risk breaking stuff in production.

C programmers will always be around since they are necessary to keep the old code running on newer hardware. There are thousands of companies relying on the Linux and BSD kernels, for example every network router, switch etc.

I have nothing against rust, but there is always a danger of having too many programming languages used in the same project, especially if a error in one language can break something in a module written in the other. That’s just a nasty complication, especially for a time critical project like the kernel.

sysV is the init system linux distributions used before systemd, openrc, upstart, runit, smf etc. It’s pretty much the old daddy and comes from Linux unix roots. Even MacOS used it before they made their own called launchd.

S6 sounds like a update to it since the capital V in sysv stands for the Roman numeral 5.

It seems absurd how it is possible for a single person to incorporate the innumerable components required for functionality in a personal system that does not crash 100% of the time due to countless incompatibility errors that come with doing something like this.

It’s really just the package manager. Every package has a description that tells the package manager what it provides and what it needs(called dependencies). So if you tell it to install X, and X needs y and z to function the package manager will automatically pull them in as well as their dependencies. It’ll also know to avoid incompatibilities the same way, the packages themselves contain the information.

90% of the real work in making a new distro is packaging, I.e. finding a way of feeding the package manager the information it needs to do its job by creating the packages. 0.1% of arch users deal with that shit.

I didn't spot that, thank you.

Great, a subscription based mail program. Because that’s clearly what people want and need, paying rent for the software on their machines.

Using ptyxis even on KDE, it’s neat. Very clean and some interesting integration with distrobox, definitely recommend.