I have a 2013 MacBook Air running EndeavourOS. Works perfectly out of the box.
LeFantome
joined 2 years ago
So if the seat in front of me reclines into my face, I cannot move without paying?
I did not quantify what that meant
It could be interpreted
That is my point exactly. Thank you for illustrating my point.
If you can be nice while also being direct, please do. We agree on being nice. We disagree on the value of speaking less plainly. When these two goals collide, speaking plainly has to prevail.
it would be better for everyone if we could all be a little bit nicer
I agree with that
personal attacks
I agree, personal attacks are bad
“this code does not make any sense to me”
But here is the problem. Your two versions are not the same. The problem is not that Linus does not understand the code. The issue is that he does.
I believe strongly that high performance culture requires that it be absolutely ok to talk about the quality of an idea or about the work and that this NOT be seen as attacking the person.
“You are an idiot” is not ok. “This code is garbage” has to be (at least from the guy whose job it is to determine code quality). You can say “this code is very low quality” or “this code is totally unacceptable” if you like.
Co-pilots will allow pilots crash planes out of respect. Engineers allow bad designs to crash planes too. Neither of these are preferable to speaking openly and plainly, at least not in my view.
Lives absolutely depend on the Linux kernel. It is ridiculous to say they do not. What do we value more, comfort or safety?
Please be nice. Please also say exactly what you mean. At work at least. Suffering fools gladly is a better strategy at play and at home.
To each his own.
Personally, I would want to live in a house where someone loudly reacts to somebody suggesting to remove a load-bearing wall for cosmetic reasons. I do not want them to pretend that it is a reasonable suggestion. Speak plainly!
You are probably joking but he has mentioned this
Well, I think some fully remote is fine. However, I do think hybrid is the best model. Just my opinion.
One of the “dangers” of fully remote is that they become fully global. The amount a company will pay becomes disconnected from the cost-of-living. That creates inequity. Not just that employees in richer areas may be underpaid but also that remote employees for rich companies may be paid far more than their countrymen in their home market.
I don’t really like the idea of running decades of income lottery while the global order works this all out.
Even within a single country it can be fairly extreme.
Well, let’s see. The UK wants mandatory ID because today you can walk in to an hospital and get $100,000 of free healthcare without even proving you are entitled to it. And you can maybe work without paying taxes. And you move freely and safely anywhere in the country.
In the US, if you do not have proof of citizenship on you at all times (and maybe even if you do), you may be snatched off the street, detained, and perhaps even sent to a foreign prison all without due process of any kind.
Wow, now that I say it out loud, you are right. The UK sounds like a hell-hole.
The same thing happens with Intel and AMD. A Linux distribution has to pick a hardware profile when they build all their code.
On x86-64, you are running code which is not completely optimized if you are running super modern hardware. That said, the performance penalty is not very big and the benefit is that the binaries are compatible with processors released years ago.
For RISC-V though, the capability difference between the stuff in the market today and the next gen is going to be significant. As a distro, you have to decide what hardware to build for. If you choose older processors, you will be leaving a lot of the next-gen capability on the table when using newer chips. If you require the new architecture, existing hardware will not make the cut.
It is just an ecosystem maturity thing. The RISC-V standard that Ubuntu is demanding reaches feature parity with AMD chips from 10 years ago (about the generation that most x86-64 distros target). So even as RISC-V advances, this new profile will probably remain a decent build target for Ubuntu. I can see why they would want to make it the standard for their distro at this point.
There are server chips appearing with these RISC-V features. This will position Ubuntu as a go-to distro for those systems. And Ubuntu will be ready in the SBC and desktop space when capable chips begin to appear there.
In my opinion, if they want this to work, they need to create a shared infrastructure for delivery that they can all use. This infrastructure needs to be a paid service for users with published pricing sorted into service tiers.
The base tier can be free with no support or “community” support. This tier can have a generous but finite usage ceiling. For higher volume users, there is a cost but also some level of “support”. That is, you can call somebody if the infrastructure is not working, performance sucks, there has been a security issue, accounts need to be segmented or merged, etc. You could also charge for performance. Why not both?
This service would operate as an independent company. It would be a service provider to the “foundations” or projects that use it. This means having payroll, legal, accounts receivable, support, and operations (eg. vetting the material they host). It would be a real company (non-profit ideally). However, instead of costing money, the service would distribute some of the fees it collects back to the projects it serves. At the very least, it would make the cost of distribution zero.
The most important part of the above is that there is definitive pricing for high-volume and/or high-need consumers. This can be budgeted and funded just like any other software or service purchase.
Problem solved.
You need a price. If you say, we need this infrastructure or technology and it costs x dollars, that can be justified, approved, and budgeted.
In most places I have worked, “my department uses something we get for free but they really want us to contribute what we can” would go exactly nowhere. Pushing too hard may actually even lead up a directive to switch to something less problematic, maybe even something commercial (that has a definitive price).
Linux Mint is based on Ubuntu LTS. LMDE is based on Debian Stable. Different kernels. So yes, drivers may be different.