A synthetic substance similar to mescaline, less headspace and body load, more entactogen, shorter and more manageable duration. Kind of like a hedonistic version of psychs compared to LSD.
A synthetic substance similar to mescaline, less headspace and body load, more entactogen, shorter and more manageable duration. Kind of like a hedonistic version of psychs compared to LSD.
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”.
Weed makes you question if you should get more snacks
I haven’t tried it in a really long time though but I didn’t really like it very much. Not that I think it’s bad, but it’s a downer and they’re just not my favorite.
Acid and 2C-B on the other hand, man. Haven’t tried other psychs unfortunately but I find them both great for their individual effects. Unfortunately, there’s the huge stigma around psychs in general plus the naturalistic crowd that makes up a proportion of psych users will only accept stuff like shrooms, peyote and ayahuasca.
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
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.
For several years I hated women because subconsciously I was angry that they are allowed to express their femininity and I’m not.
Wouldn’t the equivalent rather be women being allowed to express masculine traits? Which to be fair is well-accepted nowadays.
However, I don’t give a shit if people see some of my traits as feminine. I was born male and 100% identify as male. If others see my traits as feminine, it doesn’t change my identity because I define it. Think I shouldn’t wear long hair? Who asked for your opinion? And why should be awesome traits like empathy or openness be strictly female and not human?
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
Submitting something that is generally problematic and yelling about how it will EVENTUALLY be good is a good way to get your shit tossed out.
What are you hinting at regarding this specific news?
Maybe not, but doesn’t really answer my question what this would be used for.
I’m not hating, just interested; my last knowledge was that if you wanted to play Direct3D 12 games, you’d need the proton fork. But I don’t know many other things Direct3D is used for, so…
Yeah but to my knowledge only limited, when I tried it back then, D2R wouldn’t run with it, you’d need vkd3d-proton.
Really? They might use some GNU programs, but I’m sure the default user land for OpenBSD is all theirs. Just because you know
cp
etc. as GNU utils doesn’t mean the BSDs use the same ones. They are just part of the operating system. https://github.com/dcantrell/bsdutils tried to collect various BSD implementations for example