vira28: It looks like nearly all of your responses to comments/questions here are flagged/dead. Probably because they all look AI written. Are you actually responding or do you have an agent answering questions for you?
It's not that it does too much it's that it's monolithic (you can't necessarily swap out components) combined with the fact that the project is gradually subsuming more and more of the userspace utilities. Having the entirety of the userspace half of the OS under a single umbrella seems like a bad idea.
I think it came from the necessity for rapid integrations between different parts of the OS. And if it is handled as a single project it takes less time to improve it, since you don't have to align with 10 different projects and their release cycles.
> From what I understand from Vovk, they were intending to be “super considerate” of distributions and people not using systemd, which I take to mean we’d eventually end up in a situation very similar to systemd-logind, which was extracted from systemd into a separate daemon, elogind, so that distributions using other init systems could still make use of desktop environments depending on systemd-logind
Seems reasonable to me, it's a rearchitecture to move things up to the systemd level where it makes sense for the majority of distributions but still allow alternative implementations.
I wouldn't recommend reading that comment thread, it immediately jumps into "this is fascism!" which is why it's hard to take people seriously sometimes.
Not the OP, but I support Ubuntu as desktop and server OS for an engineering collage and have for 10ish years. Some LTS upgrades don't require many changes (mostly minor package name changes) and some take months of work to get rolled out (mostly for workstations, the server upgrades are usually quick.). Not everything gets upgraded every new OS release. If we had to upgrade everything every 6-12 months it would eat up a significant amount of time for our small team.
Only using ubuntu rn, but when the server is mostly running docker, it is simpler upgrade nowadays with so little dependencies. But then the problem just moved to the container image updates.
I have a machine that has been Fedora since twenty-something to current 44, and upgrading yearly is a breeze. Three commands, and just wait for a download and the reboot. The only thing that breaks if you forget that the upgrade needs attention is the system Postgres, until I migrated to Podman images.
I recently upgraded to Fedora 44 from Fedora 43 and I wouldn't say its a breeze, it can be difficult, especially if you've enabled extra repos.
If you use Copr (Nvidia Drivers, Non-Free Stuff) you need to ensure all your Copr packages work fine in the next version of Fedora. A ton of packages haven't been updated for Fedora 44 and this will cause issues.
Most people in the world? Potentially, though I doubt the "life ruined for years" part holds for >50%.
Most people on HN? Definite no. Most people on HN who work in roles where they're exposed to such mass surveillance or other evil at scale (like Meta)? Absolutely not.
You'd be amazed at the number of people that live pay check to pay check. Even on here, I'd guess the number is higher than you'd expect. There are plenty of people in tech that do not live in SV or work for a FAANG. You're failing victim to the echo chamber if you think everyone here is a well paid bit banger
> You'd be amazed at the number of people that live pay check to pay check. Even on here, I'd guess the number is higher than you'd expect.
Well you don't have to live anywhere near paycheck to paycheck to be intimidated. If you're stonewalled from employment, you're in trouble unless you are so fabulously wealthy that you can afford to never work again.
- There are people with $1M+ salaries who live pay check to pay check. This is a choice. A lot of HNers fall under this category.
- A lot of people who are actually poor and live pay check to pay check aren't ruined for years if they lose their job. Because the nature of their work and lack of career usually means they're unstable and replaceable "commodity" jobs in the first place.
- Almost everyone who is in a position to be exposed to evil at scale as a tech worker, is among the top 5% earners in the world. I'm being very conservative there, it's likely top 1%.
That's the whole point. That treadmill is purely for selfish personal satisfaction. This thread was about the ability to quit jobs over ethics. Those people absolutely can get off it and cut their expenditures, without their life being ruined for several years for any reasonable definition of "ruined".
I've seen [alleged] homeless people post on here before. Do you really need more than an interest in tech (and an internet connection) to read/post here?
I've seen them too, and I see no reason to question them. I'm sure there's indeed homeless people on here. I also have very good reason to believe they're a small minority. Try sample 100 profiles, especially of frequent commenters (not in "Get hired" threads). It is by its nature and origin an incredibly SV-dominated group. You and me are outliers.
I took far too many ethics and philosophy electives to have a well-paying career in computing. I should've just taken the one required ethics course for the major and gone to work for the "kinetic delivery system" company that tried to recruit me.
I always keep coming back to the Nixon years when basic income was first approved in the senate by the republicans and stopped in the house by democrats.
What a different world we'd be living in, if the (back then, at least supposedly) greatest democracy would have shown the way to a universal safety net.
How fucking sad that we ended in a world where the finders of flaws or zerodays are being suppressed and prosecuted, instead of allowing them to make the world a better place.
A handful of narcissists, sociopaths and psychopaths now hold almost all power with these structures.
At least now the pretense of democracy is dropped.
They said "shallow and uninspired" but that's separate from "requires immense skill and patience". The point is, whether or not the process is cool and impressive, is the end product really very interesting?
It can be valid to criticize something as uninspired even if you're not capable of doing it yourself. Movie critics would have a hard time otherwise.
In this case I wouldn't be quite as dismissive, personally. But if you've seen one, have you seen them all? Probably yes.
Like when someone that clearly needs more exercise, is yelling at a sports star to “not be lazy,” or “practice more.”
It can easily be said that this makes no sense, because the yeller has no idea of the tremendous work that even the lowest-tier athletes put into their vocation.
On the other hand, they are a “customer” of the athlete, and have a “right” to criticize the “product.” They are probably out of line, suggesting root causes and solutions, but they aren’t out of line for complaining about their experience with the product.
The athlete is in a no way a product a dude behind the tv bought. Tv watching guy is not a customer of the artist. Like, first of all, the dude behind the tv did not paid the athlete nor the athlete employer.
> but they aren’t out of line for complaining about their experience with the product.
They are just as asshole, as much valid as me mocking random people on the street.
I agree with that last part but the people watching the athlete are definitely the customer. The athlete gets paid because people watch them on tv (and in person). If no one watched them on tv, then they quite literally would not get paid. Their employer is selling their talent and abilities (the product) to the watchers (the customers). The watchers are literally paying the athlete and the athletes employer, if not through subscriptions or tickets, then just by watching the ads on tv.
1.) It is not even true that all athletes you watch on TV would be professionals. A lot of them are supposed amateurs, not getting actual salary at all.
2.) Like common, it is even fairly common for people to pay literally nothing to anyone and watch professional sports for free.
3.) Those who are paid are NOT paid by the watchers at all. Not even by the TV itself. Their actual employers are multiple steps away from broadcaster.
> if not through subscriptions or tickets, then just by watching the ads on tv.
That makes them products themselves. They are not paying by watching ads, their time is sold to the real customer who is whoever paid for ads.
windows update just doing a normal write causing the active chunk of flash memory being used to hold something in the boot loader to a different failed/failing section
reply