IMO, “One app/library/etc does one thing only” is a rather ignorant form of wisdom about encapsulation, anyways.

Encapsulation is important regardless of how many disparate tasks a library handles. Doing one thing with one thing is a pretty good rule of thumb to get close to good results, but it is FAR from a golden standard, and serves to drag people away from the finer nuances of encapsulation.

The ONLY time it is a hard and fast rule is at the individual function level. A single function ideally should have one task to accomplish, even if that task has side effects.

I’m sure there are cross-dependency issues on an OS level that makes it a bit wiser to do for widely used system tasks, but to make it an absolute rule smacks of wisdom gone awry. Like not eating shellfish in the bible.

IMO, the most important parts are to document the actual intent of the code. The contract of what is being documented. Sure, it’s only so useful in perfectly written code, but NO code is perfect, and few will come through later with full context already learned.

It makes it sooo mich easier to know what is intended behavior and what is an unchecked edge case or an unexpected problem. If it’s a complicated thing with a lot of fallout, good documentation can save hours of manually lining up consequences and checking through them for sanity.

You might say, “but that’s indication of bad code!”. No. Not really. Consequences easily extend past immediate code doing things as trivial as saving data to the database without filtering, or having a publicly available service. Even perfectly coded things come up with vulnerabilities all the time due to underlying security issues. It’s always great to have an immediate confirmation of what’s supposed to happen whether it’s immediate code or some library with a new quirk in a new version.

Yea, it’s not C that is crap, but that it has zero guard rails. Like blaming a knife for not having a guard… Is it a bad knife without a guard? Depends on how sharp it is. The guard is orthogonal to the knife’s purpose, but might still be important when the knife is used.

Just because something doesn’t help prevent accidents does not mean it cannot serve its actual purpose well, unless its actual purpose is safety.

Memory safe language that’s becoming viable … as a proper replacement of C.

There are many other memory safe languages out there. Just not ones most would like to pull in to the kernel…

It is both.

You are the only one wasting time by giving dumbass avoidance advice instead of telling us what you know.

… What insider information do you have and why do you want to keep us ignorant???

The question was, “why is this a technical limitation?” Not, “what should I do to work around the limitation?”.

“… by the way, we’ve already sold that feature I made up to two customers, so …”

Accelerationism is a very difficult thing to defend, though mostly because the evil shits of the world will keep pushing once most people wake up to how shitty everything is. Helping them to make things shitty is quite directly only helping shitheads further their goals.

Who’s entitlement is “this entitlement”? It’s a stupid idea to use pronouns in an opening comment, especially when you’re adding little extra.

Then FOSS is not for you. Stop using it.

The only problem the Luddites had is they went and busted the machines instead of the rich owners’ kneecaps.

If you say, “they did that too!” Well, NOT ENOUGH!!

You assume MS is competent?

Regardless of flipping the dynamic, that’s a good way to avoid scammers. It’s easy to spoof an incoming number, but near impossible to intercept an outgoing call. If your “bank” calls and starts asking funny questions, just hang up and call the real bank to check.

I mean, I’d definitely do it to SBF if his crap wasn’t cleaned out already. Though admittedly I’d largely keep going just because this world DESPERATELY needs fewer SBF types in it…

I’ve had both happen a lot. Only the basic stuff gets a correct answer, because nuance is difficult even for the tech savvy.

No, it is always the same question.

… from a person sitting in a very different situation with a slightly different problem.

They’re trying. It’s one reason they wanted to require a TPM 2.0 module. It doesn’t allow it itself, but it makes hardware MUCH easier to identify and block off hardware regardless of MS accounts and go further in the future.

Yea, Microsoft is rapidly making Linux a MUCH more attractive OS, especially in spite of their effort to keep DirectX off of it.

… getting most of my apps through snap…

You poor soul.