• 0 Posts
  • 30 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 9th, 2023

help-circle
  • The direct numerics of moors law may not be definite.

    But the principal it defines is. In the future computers will have much more power then they do now.

    The reason modern GPUs use things like shaders etc is to allow them to archive massive manipulation of data in more efficient ways specific for the task desired.

    Honestly this is why I mention time scale as the main thing that will make this possible. How modern gpus or other specialised processers do the task is less important then what the game code is asking the gpu to achieve.

    The idea that at a unknown future date. The CPU GPUs or what ever future tech we have. will never be able to run fast enough to read current cpu or gpu instruction sets. And generate the effect defined using future techniques is not viable as an argument. The only questions are how long and is anyone going to have the motivation to reverse engineer the large but finite instruction sets used by secretive hardware corps today.


  • Not so sure about that. When you consider time spans.

    Currently we can emulate the majority of early games consoles. So theoretically with time and Moors law any hardware will be emulate able in a few decades. With enough information.

    The advantage of open source software. Is it can be used with the original binaries to reverse engineer the instruction set even if the original manufacturer wishes to hide it. So with will and effort even the most complex hardware will be able to be emulated on future much faster hardware.


  • Blasphemy quick stone the unbelievers.

    Kidding of course. Have to admit I agree. I’ve used Linux since the late 1990s. So long long before it was usable by most folks standards.

    I started because my university had HPUX machines that we needed to submit work on. So wanted a unix like enviroment at home I could work on. This was a tim when linux was basically slackers on 50plus floppy disks. Xwindows needed configuring for every monitor. Honestly by current standards usability was non existant compared to windows.

    But honestly I spent so much time on the system. And watched it improve. To the point I find windows an utter pain in the arse now. And will avoid it under all circumstances.

    But the idea of convincing folks who have no interest. Where the hell do folks find the time.





  • Not OP. But curios on the subject. I use debian bookworm with an older Nvidia 1050.

    I currently tend to use gnome. As I have multi res monitors. Mainly due to vision issues. 2x32inch 2k 1x28inch 4k and a 24inch 1k

    Dose any desktop allow stable fractional scaling for each monitor independently. Its been a good few years since I looked into it. But in the past it was unstable.


  • As gnome shell and ubuntu. Have nio such good faith agreement.

    And thisbis just a process ubuntu has to reduce its own work load.

    Who really cares. Ubuntu can include and reject any software they choose.

    Ubuntu users can also add and take what ever risks they choose.

    And gnomeshell can choose to change there releases and software as they choose.

    This os the cost of free as in speach software. If you are need 3rd parties to make your software work. You have to accept they have the same freedoms you insist on.

    Personally i prefer that and the option to use older versions if thing go wrong. Then a privrate for profit ccompany making the same choices with less freedom for me.


  • You can. Most things have gui options.

    But you quickly learn for somethings. The terminal is just easier.

    If you ignore odd stuff. Most everyday stuff to maintain the system is available in a controlled panal like program. It varies based on distribution and windows manager. But the basic setup is there for most things.

    Its when you want to do something creative it gets more complex. While most commands have gui apps. Most online guidance will just find the terminal an easy way to guide you.


  • You can copy binary code. Just as easy as source code.

    It is only when running on a different architecture it gets a bit more complex.

    And give the binary is directly translatable by software. Not hugely more complex for any company of the size you are unwilling to fight in court over open source code.

    Sorry but no you are wrong. Hading the source in no way makes code harder to copy. Its how most of us hacked into games in the 1990s.

    After all binary code is just simpler instruction set that takes very very minimal effort to convert into assembly language. And can be read by many even without that effort.

    Its hardly a secret encrypted format. (Unless you are also designing your own hardware and not letting anyone see that. )


  • Is it anymore the case with other licences though.

    Obscurity is no security at all. If you have no ability to fight to keep tour copy right or patient. People will copy it open or closed.

    Even direct machine code can be copied a reverse engineered fairly simply.

    So non of this is purely a open source permissive licence issue. Its a big corperations acting like fudal lords issue.



  • HumanPenguin@feddit.uktoLinux@lemmy.mlScam bitcoin Snap app!
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    4 months ago

    Of course based on that definition. Fiat currency is the same. Just without the complex number.

    I am really not a huge fan of crypto. But honestly all modern (post gold standard) money. Is entirly based on users confidence in the nations backing it. The proof of work used for bit coin. Really is no more a matter of faith in folks dumb enough to buy it from you later.


  • Depends what nation you are in and how you obtained it.

    Anyone can release software under any licence. As long as they are not breaking the licence they release under. Or the licence they use any 3rd party code is under

    I do not think GPL has any rules about claims. Just actual actions. But if they released in under another licence. Then it is possible. (But unlikely). The licence has such rules.

    So in most cases. Actual actions or lack of rather then claims. Based on the licence is your only option. And that would mean contact he authors of any included code. Or FSF etc.

    Some nations have advertising rules. Depending on how and where it was obtained you may be able to contact their advertising standards association equiv.

    But providng for free can often weaken this. Although it is likely far from an absolute excuse to false advertising.


  • But as a user of a barge if you needed wanted to use railways. Because they are faster. It would be the barge maker or a new train maker you would look at. Not the railway.

    Just like canals X11 still exists. And is still being developed. It has its limitations but some applications are choosing not to port. Because like barge makers. They simply do not see the need. Or merit.

    If the makers of railways insisted that all current users agents had to work on them without adaption. Many of the advantages would no longer be there.

    Just as if waylaid did not expect Firefox et al to adapt to its methods. The security and other advantages they seek would not be practice.

    Waylaid is a replacement. Not an upgrade.

    (PS yeah living in the UK replace canal with inland waterways navigation. Tends to be how we think of it. As they are such a huge part of our industrial history. I forget the US really never went through that part of europeen industrial development. Your example is a fairly unique and modern by comparison, it dose not link to any network. Where as the inland waterways accross the UK and parts of Europe were a linked inferstructure like our railways. When the railways in Europe were built. They were very much seen as a replacement to our existing canal system. By both the corperations set up to build the inferstructure and the media of the time. It is literally a part of our industrial history thought is schools here. As so much of our culture and industrial revolution is built around the events)


  • Yeah sorry. But when you look at the events building europeen railways. More so in the UK as we had a huge canal system built in a few decades. But most of Europe denser areas.

    Railways were very much a replacement for the to slow canal system.

    Canals built a huge industry allowing manufacturers to ship goods to cities while shipping resources from the mines and farms etc.

    But industries like meat fish milk and strongly enough market gardening (fresh flowers) were very limited to local areas before the railways. Took off hugely when the railways intentionally set up in direct competition to the canals.

    Canals survived for a while moving the slower stuff. But started needing to redesign to support bigger and more boats faster. Before finally closing down.

    The UK and most of Europe rebuilt/renovated them as a leasure activity from the 1950s. But most of the late 1800 to early 1900s railways vcompanies actually worked to replace and put canal companies out of business.

    Passenger rail really was not a big thing untill about the 1920s.





  • HumanPenguin@feddit.uktoLinux@lemmy.mlwayland, not even once
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    You seem to use the word censor a lot. For someone who who clearly has no idea what freedom of speech means.

    Let me give you a clue. Your freedom of speech in no way forces others to provide you with a platform. Just governments not to silence you. Private citizens running web sites are not governments. So have no obligation to support your ideals.

    When private community moderators do not want to deal with the opinions you push. They are not removing anything from you. You are failing to sell your ideals in a way that appeals to the people you are trying to force your ideas upon.

    If you want to communicate with no limits. Host your own community on your own instance. And hope you do not piss off enough people to be de federated.