This is incorrect. Functional code bases exist in many production environments. Twitter (pre musk) migrated their bloated code base TO Scala because functional code bases are easier to maintain and understand.

If you think about it, it makes sense, side effect free code will be easier to maintain just due to the lack of side effects.

Small note. Opensuse Leap is EXTREMELY stable. Just as stable as RHEL and more stable than non-LTS Ubuntu. It’s just less well marketed in the English speaking world.

I can’t speak for general use. But use it to:

1. Build Rust artifacts
2. Rebuild static sites, upload them to a bucket, then clear the CDN cache.

It works perfectly for me and I have not run into issues. But it might be bad for other people. I just know it works well for me.

I use forjero with forgero runners.

Basicly 100% compatible with GitHub actions and all locally run via podman.

Strong recommend. It’s all designed to work together and everything just works.

https://forgejo.org/docs/latest/admin/runner-installation/

Sadly no. Licenses like MIT or BSD are free as in freedom but don’t stop others from taking that freedom away in future releases.

Did you respond to the wrong post? I’m not gate keeping or attacking at all.

No one is holding anyone back or stopping anyone from participating here. No one wants to limit who can use Linux. I want everyone to use Linux actually. That would be amazing.

All copy left software is foss but not all foss is copy left.

If gnu utils where MIT licensed instead of GPL we wouldn’t have the free routers that we have today.

Cisco fought against opening things up tooth and nail but was forced to because of their use of community GPL code. If the code was MIT the community would have nothing back.

MIT lets companies use community work to enrich themselves without giving back.

GPL forces companies to give back if they want to or not.

Why let companies enrich themselves at the cost of society if we don’t have to?

This article is from 2024. Hopefully it worked out. 😆

Different customers are dumb in different ways and different customers have different personalities.

If I sent a template email I would probably offend most of my customers. Lol.

Depends on the email. Sometimes it’s needed.

I can spend 10-20 min writing an email that basically says “no your idea is dumb and won’t work” to customers in such a way where by the end of it they agree with me.

It can take a bit of effort but with high stakes communication it’s needed.

If you’re just sending an email to your teacher or whatever it doesn’t really matter.

Very cool. How did you make it?

Think of it like the flooded house analogy. They could paint the dry wall while tearing it out at the same time. But why would they?

They’re not refusing. They’re actually doing the opposite. But they needed to get their house in order first.

The 3.0 upgrade was the result of the getting their house in order and modernizing. Doing cosmetic changed before hand would have made no sense because those changes would have been thrown away when they would have to modernize things anyways.

I think I have an analogy.

Gimp was like an old American style wooden house that was flooded. After the water recedes you could try to make things look nicer by plastering and painting the walls etc. But as goes with flooded houses if you do this the mold will rot everything out.

In order to save a flooded house you need to remove all the dry wall and use fans to dry out the internals. Once things are dry then you can plaster and repaint things.

Gimp 3.0 was them ripping out dry wall and air drying the internals. Now that that is done it now makes sense to clean up the UI.

If you clean up the UI before you dry the walls out it’s just a waste of time because those improvements would need to be ripped out with the dry walls always.

It’s not perfect as far as an analogy goes but it’s close. Gimp should have never let the house flood in the first place. (Analogy breaks down here a bit). But since they did. They needed to fix the fundamental before it would be worth fixing the UI.

This all being said they could at this point genuinely refuse to change things UI wise. I hope they choose to pull a Blender or Krita but they don’t have to.

I mean the whole point of doing the mega rewrite to gtk3 was specifically to enable such forward looking progress.

What they did in the 3.0 release was, largely, a massive modernization of a dinosaur code base.

Now that it’s done it makes sense to do a UI overhaul. Before 3.0 it made no sense to even try, now it does.

That’s terrible. I noticed that there is a certain type of programmer. Normally they went to Uni in the late 90s or early 2000s and their entire education was focused around Java.

They went out to get a job writing “Enterprise” Java for 10 years.

This programmer then tries to learn another language, but because all they know is Java everything ends up looking like and structured as Java.

I’ve seen this developer over and over again. It’s possible for them to overcome Java Brain but it’s rare.

I bet one of these types of programmers is or was the technical lead of that project.

I noticed something similar when I worked on a Scala project in the past. Yes I know we’re on the JVM, but we don’t need a data deconstructor factory when flatmap is right there.

That would be interesting.

Have you considered using LUA or perhaps scheme?

I know helix is likely to use scheme as its future scripting language. It’s quite robust and there is an excellent library to embed it.

I only mention LUA because it’s like the goto embedded scripting language in my book.

https://github.com/mattwparas/steel

Good for you!

I will agree that rust is a very satisfying language to write in. Lol.

For me it’s either go full rust aiming for correctness and robustness, or go full python aiming for duck typing and flexibility.

This all being said Gleam and Scala are also quite beautiful to me at least.

If Mozilla drops Manifest v2 I might as well switch to a chrome variant (not brave).

I don’t want a web monoculture but it might as well be if Mozilla just copies chrome at every step.

It’s a hard problem in the fediverse. It makes for a ticking time bomb of an issue. Imagine I am on a “everything is your own, we don’t sell your stuff” instance while another instance just copy pasted metas ToS. By posting a response to my instance, which then in turn is federated to the meta style instance I create something hard to solve. I can foresee other issues too.

I see your point. I just think it’s a difficult problem.

I don’t think the ToS approach would be invalidated here via your Safe Harbor fork theory.

The ToS could state something like “you give us a worldwide perpetual right to use your content in any way we want including granting this right to whom we designate”

You still own your content but by having an account you agree to the ToS that lets them do what they want.

They just host it and are safe.