/tech/ - Technology

>>14990
>>22945
and an AMD version now, for that matter

>>20034
All well-known Linux distros are either maintained by corporations or corporation-paid freelancers or are forks of the aforementioned distros with tiny changes and configurations
Same with the big 3 BSDs

>>22949
if you feel you need to use an OS which had no corporation involved at any point in the development, then feel free to use templeOS or some meme shit like that. but the point of that comment was obviously about the lack of variety of OSes, which isn't much of a problem with linux because it's extremely configurable, documented, modular, and inspectable.

>>22954
Hyperbola ( https://hyperbola.info ) is a distro that wants to purge corporate influence from their distro.

Doesn't help that now it's basically a one-man project and the dev's english seems p retty much broken. Hyperbola's reasoning builds on https://logicmag.io/failure/freedom-isnt-free/ ( or maybe they just plagiarized parts of it ). I don't recommend reading the hyperbola writeup, it's broken english all the way down.

dumb fucks disallowed freight forwarding and now I can't get their laptop. way to go framework!
what a bunch of fucking low lifers, they only ship to very specific countries and keep telling their international customers to just wait. it's going to take them years to ship their product legally to the rest of the world. people started freight forwarding their products but then framework banned any discussion on their forums and made it harder to freight forward. what a bunch of morons.

YOU DON'T FUCK WITH YOUR CUSTOMERS. EVER.

>>22527
Muh entrepreneurship.
I just made the connection that entrepreneur worship is identical with fascist ideology on the theme of the heroic leader cutting through bureaucracy

>>23241
i wonder what the common thread here is (liberalism)

>>23239
Yup, he literally bribed her to shut up about it.

>>23239
But Wikipedia says he's gay.

>>23282
he's probably bisexual. either way his sister talking about it makes the entire situation very suspicious, I believe he did diddle his sister. if it was just money she was after I don't get why she would go to the trouble of lying about it, she could probably just ask for a favor once in a while. so something is definitely up with this guy.

They overhired during Covid and are shredding the excess.

It's the interest rates. The tech sector is extremely allergic to high rates because it relies on either the companies directly or VCs indirectly to impulsively borrow too much money.

>>23278
These layoffs have been happening for 2 years now.

Is the button engineering thing real? It sounds like a strawman. Here's a clear explanation for why it makes sense for these big companies to have specialists: https://danluu.com/in-house/

>>23112
I see where you are coming from, and while I'm not a real Lisp nerd, there is definitely some beauty in the core principle of the language, and there is a reason why languages like Python, Java and Ruby are so successful: they took many things that were common coding patterns in Lisp during the 1980s and 1990s and reinvented the wheel with ALGOL-like syntax. That's in part why Guy Steele was among the Java committee.
The only thing they didn't steal from Lisp yet is homoiconicity. They tried with languages like Dylan, but nobody gives a fuck about Dylan.

There is also no other programming language — except Smalltalk — that offers the same degree of interactivity as Common Lisp, or hell, even Emacs Lisp, where you can modify the behavior of the editor, which is nothing but a Lisp interpreter, in real time by evaluating a statement after pressing Ctrl-X then Ctrl-E.
Try redefining the "lambda" keyword in Python: it's impossible.
In Emacs, I can evaluate

(defmacro lambda (x) 0)
(defmacro defmacro (x y z) 0)

and completely break my editor. It's real hacker shit.
Protip: VSCode is nothing but Emacs with Javascript, without the interactivity

That said, I don't recommend to clueless beginners to start messing with Lisp if they aren't already familiar with basic programming concepts like variables, control flow, loops, functions, etc.
Lisp documentation is like kicking whales down the beach. Emacs Lisp documentation is terrible. Common Lisp is an old language and has tons of cruft dating back from the MacLisp days, like gazillons of ways to declare a variable.
Imagine yourself being a beginner all over again, and asking yourself "should I use setf or setq to declare a variable? what is dynamic scope?" or "should I use while, dolist, dotimes or the loop macro?" while a few autists start a flame war among themselves about whenever the loop macro is ""unlispy"" or not.
I'm not even talking about Scheme and its gazillion uncompatible dialects. Want to loop over something? I hope you are used to recursive thought patterns. Racket is neat and the documentation is great, but it doesn't have the same interactivity as Common Lisp and Emacs, and I don't code in Lisp to be hygienic.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>23214
>The only thing they didn't steal from Lisp yet is homoiconicity. They tried with languages like Dylan, but nobody gives a fuck about Dylan.
Homoiconicity is not the only reason why lisp is special. In fact, I think it is a rather poorly defined concept. Is python homoiconic because it has an ast package for handling python code as data?
Mainstream languages are further from lisp than just not having an S-expression syntax. Those features they took from lisp (I object to using the word steal here, anyone is within their right to make a programming language with whatever concepts they like) are often taken partially or without surrounding features which make them more useful. For example, python has lambdas but they are gimped by the fact that python has an expression/statement dichotomy and lambdas can only contain an expression (so instead you have to def a local function which is like using labels/flet). Another example is languages like rust which have macros but are gimped in a myriad of ways, like only being callable using a special macro call syntax and the c-style compilation process making them able to access and modify less state than in lisp.
>There is also no other programming language — except Smalltalk — that offers the same degree of interactivity as Common Lisp, or hell, even Emacs Lisp, where you can modify the behavior of the editor, which is nothing but a Lisp interpreter, in real time by evaluating a statement after pressing Ctrl-X then Ctrl-E.
Honorable mention to erlang.
>That said, I don't recommend to clueless beginners to start messing with Lisp if they aren't already familiar with basic programming concepts like variables, control flow, loops, functions, etc.
That is questionable advice since all of these things are slightly different in lisp compared to mainstream languages. There's that old lisp meme that goes something like "anyone can learn lisp in a week, except if they learned fortran first, then it takes two weeks"
>Imagine yourself being a beginner all over again, and asking yourself "should I use setf or setq to declare a variable? what is dynamic scope?" or "should I use while, dolist, dotimes or the loop macro?" while a few autists start a flame war among themselves about whenever thPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>23124
>lowest high-level language
Is this true? Does that mean it's faster than other HLLs? What about Python with a PyPy interpreter or a C compiler?

And how does Smalltalk compare to CL? Or CL to Scheme?

>>23220
>lowest high-level language
>Is this true? Does that mean it's faster than other HLLs? What about Python with a PyPy interpreter or a C compiler?
Not that anon, and I don't really agree that there are significant differences in highlevelness between pretty much all high level languages with gc, but being low level does not mean good performance and vice-versa.
The performance of cl depends on the implementation (like with your python example, except that cl code is usually more portable between implementations). Some implementations like clisp and abcl have garbage performance. Implementations like ecl and ccl have passable performance. The best performing and most used (at least in the open source community) is sbcl, which beats most other high level language implementations like python, ruby, etc. while getting beaten by c unless you really take care in optimizing your code.
>And how does Smalltalk compare to CL? Or CL to Scheme?
Smalltalk is more niche than both cl and scheme. Some cl features are inspired by smalltalk though, like clos (a bit indirectly, with clos being a descendant of symbolics flavors, and symbolics being generally inspired by the work at xerox parc).
The scheme community is generally way more oriented towards functional programming than cl's. But scheme does not really have an unified community since it's difficult to impossible to write scheme projects which can run on multiple implementations, while it's relatively easy in cl. Scheme's main language is way smaller and generally more oriented towards some conceptions of simplicity and purity they have, but in my opinion it just makes scheme a pita to use compared to cl.

>>23220
>Does that mean it's faster than other HLLs?
Looking at sbcl specifically, all functions are compiled at runtime or precompiled. Possible sources of overhead compared to a low-level language would be runtime checks, that may be disabled with (declaim (optimize (speed 3) (debug 0) (safety 0)).
You can also add type declarations to prevent dynamic dispatch and do faster arithmetic. Linked list usage may be optimized by doing destructive operations on them or replacing them with arrays and hashmaps.
Some datatypes and common coding patterns might slow down a program at many loop iterations, but you can get a lot of mileage out of a good common lisp compiler.

>>23208
Regulations are never fucking enough for these guys. Just ban proprietary software outright. No proprietary software, no problem.

>>23211
Even if there were no copyright protections for software, hardware manufacturers like Apple could still make a walled garden by making it technically impossible or very hard to modify the software running on your device.

>>23222
>Even if there were no copyright protections for software
I said outright ban it. Outright ban… the software.

BAN THE SOFTWARE, SOFTWARE SHOULD BE ILLEGAL.

Amazon admits to giving Ring videos to police without permission, surprising absolutely nobody.
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3557545-amazon-admits-to-giving-ring-videos-to-police-without-permission/
Remember that you do not need to know what is happening outside your front door at all times.

suburban surveillance state

Isn't the entire problem of porch piracy caused by US postal companies not having a policy of actually waiting for someone to answer the door? Are the cost savings accomplished by not doing that actually significant?

>>15040
Ring cameras are bad enough but the people who rig up the inside of their houses with cameras are fully psychotic

>>23139
Retro games are played not because they were """better""" (at least not necessarily: there are some retro gaming snobs just as there are modern gaming snobs). They're played because they're good games.

If modern software and games are shit it should be treated as a bug just like security holes should.

>>23055
There is definitely point in keeping archaic software alive: it's still useful. And however useless it becomes with time, it's still more useful than something that doesn't exist.

>>23151
emacs is not archaic, it's from the future

>>23152
Genera was the future! Zmacs is to modern emacs what plan9 is to linux.

>>22609
does sway have configurable gaps

>>23160
You're misinterpreting Stallman's ethics, they're mainly concerned about development, not use. If you use proprietary software you're not "evil," at max Stallman will view you as some kind of a masochist who denies themself their freedom, it's the people who made profit off of that software who are to blame.

That said, I don't care about ethics so I simply support that development model which it is in my interest to support. And since I hate the glowies and the Big Tech and like to tweak my software to my liking it's only natural that I would support libre software. Because there's nothing else to support.

>>23165
What? No. It is about use. And being used.
> With free software, the users control the program, both individually and collectively. So they control what their computers do (assuming those computers are loyal and do what the users' programs tell them to do).
> With proprietary software, the program controls the users, and some other entity (the developer or “owner”) controls the program. So the proprietary program gives its developer power over its users. That is unjust in itself; moreover, it tempts the developer to mistreat the users in other ways.
…
> If the users don't control the program, the program controls the users. With proprietary software, there is always some entity, the developer or “owner” of the program, that controls the program—and through it, exercises power over its users. A nonfree program is a yoke, an instrument of unjust power.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html

>>23168
It's about the development model which ensures that the users control the program. There is nothing in this text that contradicts my point. Unlike the Open Source enthusiasts, the software freedom advocates stress the importance of ethical development instead of merely practical one, that's the only difference. Privacy, modifiability and trust are secondary goals to the Open Source enthusiasts, they always prioritize COLLABORATION, as if it's the most important thing about libre software.

The goal of libre software development is for you to not be used, yes. But if you're used you aren't "evil," the ones who use you are.

>>23175
>they always prioritize COLLABORATION
Which is development. I am not sure what you are trying to say. Privacy, modifiability and trust are secondary to Free Software, too, they are not included in the four freedoms.

>>23176
>Which is development.
Not necessarily an ethical one. You can collaborate on developing proprietary software too. But proprietary software is unethical according to the FSF.
>Privacy, modifiability and trust are secondary to Free Software, too, they are not included in the four freedoms
They are derived directly from the four freedoms and from the user's control over their software. Without this control, all the privacy is basically "Trust us, bro" and all the modifiability is whatever toolkits the devs provide (which are in many cases none at all). Remember that Stallman started it all because he couldn't modify a printer's firmware which annoyed him a lot.

The only reason why OSS even has privacy, modifiability and trust is because most OSS is also libre, not the other way around.

>>22989
drink real libre bear instead
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Beer

>>23000
>drink real libre bear instead
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alcoholics-autonomous-anarchy-and-alcohol
Why should I even drink real beer? Like I don't have something else to spend my money on. And why does this even exist? Don't people already know how to brew beer?

>>22989
Write one.

>>23002
>Write one.
My programming skills bad.

>>23003
This is a good opportunity to practice is.

OpenWrt - FOSS Firmware For Your Router

OpenWrt One - celebrating 20 years of OpenWrt
https://forum.openwrt.org/t/openwrt-one-celebrating-20-years-of-openwrt/183684/1
>OpenWrt One will be a wireless networking device designed for free and open source software enthusiasts, encouraging people to tinker with and learn about embedded development and Linux networking.

1. As open as possible and fully compliant with all copyleft and other FOSS licenses it uses
2. An educational platform for tinkering with/learning about open hardware and Linux
3. A way to donate to the OpenWrt project while receiving a nice gadget in return
4. Provide expansibility through mikroBUS, GPIOs and PCI/e M.2
5. Software unbrickable and easily recoverable without additional means
6. The satisfaction of achieving an overdue personal objective

>>22296
Router side protection is your main defense. You can run shitty outdated software on your device under a good router and that router will do most security for you but bad ones potentially leave your whole network vulnerable. Especially with the amount of automated port scanning going on. I would say it's worth it to ditch ISP provided router if possible and/or find some kind of foss up to date firmware for your new one. Many older routers are supported though if you find the model on a list of supported devices a used one shouldn't be much, that's what i did, was like maybe 30$.

Think freshtomato, OpenWRT, DD-wrt something and then keep on new updates for it. Of all the things to ignore and run unpatched/outdated versions of, router firmware is the worst one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_router_firmware_projects

Also here's a good site that is doing exactly what you should be worried about, mass scanning and searching for vulnerable routers/devices. You can search by manufacturer, OS, IP, etc and see how many open devices are sitting around. No wonder botnets are so common now.

https://www.shodan.io/

>>23155
Why does it need so much RAM?

>>22296
Why tf not? It's cool to have all the code auditable and to support the development of more libre software projects… if you have the money of course.