YOUR REALITY IS SHAKEN

YOU HEAR THE WORD “MONDAY” ECHOING AND SHIFTING IN COLOURS

A kind of interesting phenomenon. He comes in with his dog, cries that he doesn’t have a place to stay, Jon allows it for as long as needed and then… he just vanishes one day, leaving Odie with Jon, never to contact them again. Did something happen between the two? Was he ever real or a product of Jon’s mind? A wiki states:

According to Davis, Lyman’s original purpose was to be someone who Jon could actually talk to and express other ideas — a role gradually taken over by Garfield, himself.

It doesn’t reveal who gave Lyman that purpose; it could be that it was Jon himself who, over the years, got less attached to reality, so he got done with talking to and interacting with Garfield.

That or it’s just a lazy uninspired comic that only has a minimum level of continuity and doesn’t care to explain why a former choir character suddenly vanishes.

They’re afraid of the drag dealers’ wrath

I was also with a provider that didn’t offer API access for the longest time. When they then increased prices, I switched, now paying a third of their asking price per year at a very good provider.

I guess migrating is difficult if the provider doesn’t offer a mechanism to either dump the DNS to a file or perform a zone transfer (the later being part of the standard).

Can only recommend INWX for domains, though my personal requirements aren’t the highest.

Not true, I also enjoy stuff not created by workers, like mountains, forests or the sea.

On the other hand, I hate a lot of stuff capitalism created.

A lot of paid cert providers were not so great before LE put the spotlight on the issue; it was more of a scheme to extract money from operators who couldn’t afford to not offer TLS / SSL. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=647959 was a famous post that made fun of / criticized the system before LE. This hurt security, and if not free, LE wouldn’t have worked.

Also wildcard certificates are more difficult to do automated with let’s encrypt.

They are trivial with a non-garbage domain provider.

If you want EV certificates (where the cert company actually calls you up and verifies you’re the company you claim to be) you also need to go the paid route

The process however isn’t as secure as one might think: https://cyberscoop.com/easy-fake-extended-validation-certificates-research-shows/

In my experience trustworthyness of certs is not an issue with LE. I sometimes check websites certs and of I see they’re LE I’m more like “Good for them”

Basically, am LE cert says “we were able to verify that the operator of this service you’re attempting to use controls (parts of) the domain it claims to be part of”. Nothing more or less. Which in most cases is enough so that you can secure the connection. It’s possibly even a stronger guarantee than some sketchy cert providers provided in the past which was like “we were able to verify that someone sent us money”.

I, a systems guy, have a better time learning go than nix packages.

Go is a simple and elegant imperative language (that does come with its downsides); Nix the DSL is a functional language which requires a different way of thinking. Systems usually are operated imperatively, so it’s normal that you’d find it easier.

It’s not an easy language at all and one might ask if another one wouldn’t do the job better, which is what Guix System kind of explores, but its (nix) design goals make a lot of sense.

NTSYNC is one example, I don’t know what the current progress is https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240124004028.16826-1-zfigura@codeweavers.com/

It was supposed to be in 6.10, I don’t know if that actually happened

deleted by creator

For most network share I use /mnt/$server.

I use /mnt/$proto/$server, though that level of organization was probably overkill. Whatever…

I do /volumX for additional hard drives.

A good first approximation.

So where in this setup would you mount a network share? Or am additional hard drive for storage? The latter is neither removable nor temporary. Also /run is quite more than what this makes it seem (e.g. user mounts can be located there), there is practically only one system path for executables (/usr/bin)…

Not saying that the graphic is inherently wrong or bad, but one shouldn’t think it’s the end all be all.

You hit one of my weak spots.

Person puts text on an image “look everyone, I made a meme!”

I’ve accepted that this fight is lost

Lemmys memes are alright if a bit too much pro-linus/bash-windows

Your chance to go against the flow!

Regardless of quality of each system, it’s understandable that Lemmy’s userbase would lean more towards Linux as the reasons for using both instead of the dominant alternative are similar. Also Linux works really well for most stuff you’d do on Windows compared to 20 years ago.

But yeah it becomes somewhat annoying when people base a part of their identity on it. Then again, this is always true, regardless of topic at hand.

Any day now

Sacre bleu

The title says “bcachefs-tools”, the linked kernel thread that the comment referred to was about the bcachefs kernel part and did not touch the bcachefs userspace tools. Debian says they can’t package with these pinned dependencies and explains why. Kent says relaxing dependencies breaks the programs.

The only hint at the other topic I see is this:

(not even considering some hostile emails that I recently received from the upstream developer or his public rants on lkml and reddit)

I guess this is about https://www.reddit.com/r/bcachefs/comments/1em2vzf/psa_avoid_debian/, and while I think the title is too broad, the actual message is

If you’re running bcachefs, you’ll want to be on a more modern distro - or building bcachefs-tools yourself.

I don’t consider Kent’s reasoning (also further down the thread) a rant - it might not be the most diplomatic, but he’s not the only one who has problems with Debian’s processes. The xscreensaver developer is another one for similar reasons.

I think, in fairness, bcachefs and Debian currently aren’t a good fit. bcachefs is also in the kernel so users can rest it and report, but it wasn’t meant to be stable; it’s meant to not lose data unrecoverably.

Anyhow, while I think that he’s also not the easiest person on the LKML, I don’t consider him ranting there; and with the author’s and my judgement differing in these points, I’m led to believe that we might also disagree on what qualifies as hostile.

Lastly, while I’m not a big fan of how Rust packaging works, it ensures that the program is built exactly the same on the developer’s and other machines (for users and distributors); it is somewhat ironic to see Debian complain about it, since they do understand the importance of reproducibility.

You must have missed the last half of the post then. Especially the last two paragraphs.

There’s isn’t much more to that issue than that sentence, while all other paragraphs cover the packaging. It’s tangential at best.

The OP is about packaging issues with userspace utilities due to version pinning in Rust. It’s an issue with Rust in general. Kent is not obligated to lock dependencies in any particular fashion. He could loosen the dependencies, but there is no obligation, and Debian has no obligation to package it.

This is different from the thread you linked in which the bcachefs kernel code and the submission process is discussed, and on which there was a thread here as well in the last days. But your criticism, as valid as it is, only applies there, not in a thread about tooling packaging issue.

Which is a completely different issue than what the post is about, hence my question