A fair enough. That sucks major balls

Nice. Id instantly stop using those apps. But it looks like it just checks if dev settings are enabled. You can disable them again after unlocking bootloader you know :D

Til then, stuff works on my phone/lineageos but i thought they only checked for root because then things can go haywire and become unsafe then.

Unlocked bootloader should be fine. Now rooted android is a whole different beast…

I think you have things wrong. Any other languages can have libraries be distributed as some format that would allow applications to use it, be it linux/gcc and .a files ( which are actually archives with elf/object files of the code ), or a full on library like .so/.dll.
Rust can only do .o/.dll and only have it expose like a c library afaik. Even .net has improved on the .dll and includes all its language features in it. Rust has none of that. Its not true that libraries not rebuilding are only for closed source. Its also ease of use/access and less problem prone. What if i build my library using a different version of the compiler than you and your application? I could have no problems building my library, while you cant build your application because the library i made gets rebuild and errors.
These errors happen and are all because there is no stable interface/abi and all other languages have overcome this.

Also, by default, nothing in c is rebuild unless it needs to. Thats why the intermediate .o ( elf object ) files exist, so it only has to do the relinking and not recompile and thats why .a archive/libraries in c work, because it doesnt recompile. Unless you meant the fact rust can rebuild part of a file, without recompiling it completely?

I think you dont fully understand how c compilers ( gcc specifically ) work when using multi file projects ( and not just doing gcc input.c -o output.exe ) just how i dont fully know how the rust compiler works. Also, anything using IL will always have an abi, because how else will it jump from code to IL code, so its obvious that rust to wasm will have to abide by that haha. Be it c wasm, c# wasm or rust wasm calling one another. Wasm is wasm, and you only need an exposed interface to call or include the other wasm ( c#/blazor having NativeFileReference in the csproj )

Again, i like the idea of rust, but it has a long way to go to be viable atm. And it has many pitfalls to avoid so it doesnt become the hot mess that is any framework based on node.js

I know that exists, but whats the point of that? You loose all advantages of rust when you use the library then because it cant predict application state with the library code. There is a reason all those rust libraries are compiled locally when you compile a rust application. Its a major lacking point for rust, and as long as it lacks that its dead in the water for big projects.
Again, i like strong type stuff and i like the ideas of rust but it is not grown up enough for me

What is this abi and standard calling methods you speak off? Are you a rust-non-believer or some shit! Rewrite it all in rust, no questions asked!

( i too like the ideas of rust, but without a decent abi or not constantly changing interface, its useless to me. I dont want to rebuild all code, including libraries every time i update 1 library in my application )

Saaaaame. But sometimes even strongly typed stuff wont break on compilation time

Its funny cause its true. I often design tests to be “if a case/enum value is added this test will explode and tell them to add code here”

Their source code repo contains a copy of libogc for wii/gc builds because they were annoyed at us. And i do mean a copy. Not a reference, or a sub-module, a full on copy that they build before building the wii/gc executable.

Their own issue, as long as we dont get reports of their broken shit…

Then there are the multiple times they cloned emu repos and butchered them into cores. Or the fact they force the core interface on emulators making them bad.

Retroarch is a nice project from a far, but the closer you look, the more you see huge ass cracks in the project, held down with duct-tape

I know, hence why i said youre not wrong but the example was wrong :p
Also, its more complex than that. Some teams can, some cant. And if they can it all depends on what project or context. The business world isnt that cut and dry hehe

Not saying youre wrong, but you took the wrong project as an example hehe.
Visual code is not open source. Its core is, but visual code isnt. The difference is what visual code ships with, on top of its core.
Its like saying chrome == chromium ( it isnt ).

Visual code comes with a lot of features, addins and other stuff that isnt in the core.
.net debugger for example, is not found in vscodium ( build of the vscode core ). And there is more stuff i cant think of now but have come across. Source: been using vscodium for a few months instead of vscode

Fair, and ill edit my post accordingly!

There are teams that are allowed, and within those companies are teams that are directly related to foss projects because those companies are in the foundation or supports of the foundation. However, thats doesnt mean every (product) team in the company is allowed to or that they can do or change whatever they like. Its a complex mess

Thats just dual booting. That wont work with the law if the contract says anything created using company hardware is theirs.
And yes, some companies need to give you a green light to work on projects in your free time, because they might have a team doing similar things somewhere, it might compete in something they would like to do in the future or like you said, might use company know how which is a huge nono. Its bs imo, but those clauses and rules are found in some employment agreements.
Remember, always read your employment agreements!

Yes, but not all devs within microsoft are allowed to work on non-ms foss projects. I assume wsl devs are allowed to send stuff to linux but visual studio devs probably are not.

And not every team is allowed to do that.
Also, youre telling somebody who has worked with big companies not allowing it in their employer contract that he is lying? Riiiight…
A lot of google devs also are not allowed to do any linux work outside of work without explicit permissions because of all the internal docs, teams and other work being done on linux from within google. Development rights is an absolute mess, legally.
I usually dont care and do what is right, despite what my emploter contract says, but i have gotten in trouble for it

I agree they should have sent a patch to the grub source, but keep in mind big software companies like microsoft, Verizon, … do not normally allow their product teams to send a patch or PR to open source projects. This is because in their contract it states that all code written on and during company times is owned by the company. This means that it is impossible for them to make a patch or PR because it would conflict with the projects licence and fact its open source.
This changes when the team explicitly works on the foss product/project like the ms wsl team or the team working on linux supporting azure hardware, but that is an exception. I do not believe the microsoft kernel/bootloader team is allowed to send patches to grub.

Its a terrible thing, and it shouldnt be, but thats the fact of the world atm.

Yes, but in reviews the handbrake benchmarks didnt even get close to the 40% amd claimed

Youre confusing comparison of os’ with hardware reviews. It makes no sense to use an arch benchmark for a public is majority windows based gamers. The arch benchmark would make sense for a journalistic piece about windows having terrible performance.
Hence why id love for gamers nexus to investigate this using a linux to windows comparison for the same task. However, this would no longer have anything to do with zen5

But the numbers would mean nothing for the consumers. You abstract away too much and reduce it too far for anyone outside the loop to make sense