I don’t care if people look at the leaked Windows source code, frankly they should lie about doing so to avoid being sued. I don’t understand what your point is supposed to be.

KDE has nearly all of these now. Not all of them are official Wayland protocols (I think global keyboard shortcuts fall under that umbrella still). Some of the issues you’re complaining about I’ve never even seen a Wayland desktop have (eg not letting you set a window to stay on top, literally every wayland desktop I’ve ever used has had this).

And graphical performance for Wayland native apps has been on par with or superior to xorg for a while, however running software through XWayland does add some latency, so for very fast-paced games running in Wine, X11 is still the move.

Wow. Project that started out by framing itself as the anti-woke X11 server is developed by obnoxious shitheads. Who could Possibly have forseen this. 🙄

I don’t fundamentally disagree with the sentiment, but local models are mostly benign as long as you actually understand the code you’re submitting and rewrite it to remove the slop portions. Plus prohibiting it entirely just means people will lie about using LLMs. I do think Debian should have mandated people disclose whether/how AI was used for any given commit tho

I mean the best local models are only a few months behind the the best proprietary cloud models. Just look at Qwen 3.8 Flash or 27B. Imo local models are more than sufficient if you’re going to use AI for programming. Who cares if the small model can’t oneshot the whole patch, you shouldn’t be submitting raw LLM code to public repos anyway. Imo the only acceptable use of LLMs for coding is as a way of rapidly prototyping ideas that you will later mostly/entirely rewrite by hand, or as an extra static analysis tool for finding potential security holes.

And as someone who frankly doesn’t give a shit about intellectual property over code, my main ethical issue with LLMs is the monstrous resource consumption of hyperscale datacenters, so local models are strongly preferable. Also for privacy reasons.

For hardware over 20 years old? I don’t think the manufacturers planned on it lasting this long lmao

Yeah, I agree. In practice it’s difficult to tell whether or not someone used AI to help them code something (especially if they didn’t just tell the LLM to do everything lmao), so it makes more sense to check whether they actually understand the code they’re trying to commit. That’ll keep out the slop while still letting people use coding LLM agents as a static analysis tool for finding bugs or something.

You can read into how you like the presence of certain instances/words/users on the blocklist, but putting BZ on a blocklist = bigot seems to me like a jump to conclusion.

I will, and I consider you willfully ignorant for not doing so. Consider the probability distribution of likely motivations for drawing up a secret blacklist that specifically targets queer communities and anyone to the left of “let’s hunt immigrants for sport”. The majority of that distribution is gonna be bigotry.

Like I said, I afford FOSS devs lots of grace and benefit of doubt, that’s just me, if the issue was solely over the choice of instances being blocked by default, I’d excuse it, but that isn’t the main issue. Call me too charitable, sure, it’s in my nature and you don’t have to be me.

Interesting choice to give the developer who already violated user trust by imposing a secret blacklist the benefit of the doubt on their bigotry. Seems like that would lose them the benefit of the doubt if you were being intellectually honest.

It was the trust that the so-called “Toxic mode” could remove all filtering, but it didn’t, and the trust that connection errors were simply configuration problems and not intentionally obfuscated filtering routines, these formed the trust that was broken.

Requiring users to enable “toxic mode” in order to access queer spaces isn’t evidence of bigotry to you?

Like I would have zero problems with developers that do this, if they could come out clearly and document/announce: “I don’t like these accounts or words, if you do then this is what you do to change it or shut it off.”

Given that the list very clearly targets queer users for being queer (entire lemmy.blahaj.zone instance blocked), you are being far too charitable with an obviously bad faith actor.

Trust that if they’re a piece of shit it won’t take long for them to confirm it (again) loud and clear. Not saying this isn’t a whole big bunch of bullshit, just that they should at least get a small opportunity to respond with their side.

Given the fact that he deliberately targeted trans/queer people with this list, I am uninterested in giving him the benefit of the doubt, and very much hope everyone switches to the db0 fork and he loses his whole project over his bigoted hubris.

I did not know about this before, bookmarking the OpenSnitch github so I can try it out on my PC later

It seems like gcc rust would pretty much fix that issue, since soon gcc will be able to compile rust for any architecture gcc supports.

No, it’s licensed under the LGPL, which means source code can be freely distributed and distros would continue to package it for free no matter how hard Redhat tried to paywall it.

That depends on your use case, I just did a simple zpool with no redundancy because I wanted maximum speed/capacity and all my data is backed up on an external HDD. If you need redundancy, I would look online for how to configure that and what the optimal setup is.

Actually, I assumed you just had the SSD, if you have more than 256gb of free space between those HDDs, you can go ahead and remove the SSD from your zpool right now (unless your bootloader is there, then you’ll have to make an EFI system partition on one of the HDDs and install a bootloader first)

Fair, haven’t use Ubuntu or any of it’s derivatives in years

You need to add the new drive to your existing pool because ZFS stores data across all drives by default, similar to a RAID0. Then you remove the old drive and ZFS will automatically copy the data off the failing drive onto the healthy one and allow you to remove the failing drive with no data loss.

Manjaro is basically just arch Linux on a 1-2 week update lag, so you’d have just as much if not more success with EndeavorOS or raw Arch.

Honestly my main issue with Manjaro is still that they hold updates for a week or two for “testing” which tends to break certain AUR packages. I’d be less mad if the testing actually amounted to anything, but half the time they basically do nothing, and if there were any bugs Arch has released updates that resolve them already, which you won’t get for another week because of their update schedule. Anytime anyone talks about being interested in Manjaro, I just recommend they get EndeavorOS instead, it’s basically stock arch with a fancy installer and sane defaults which is great for anyone who mostly knows what they’re doing with Linux (or is at least capable of opening a terminal window and pasting error messages into google or, failing that, ChatGPT and following basic instructions)

Doesn’t Mint hold back kernel updates to major version upgrades like Ubuntu though? That could be problematic if they have newer hardware that’s better supported (or only supported at all) in newer kernel releases.