- Copyleft doesn't work well with Rust's ecosystem of many small crates and heavy reliance on libraries alongside static linking.
If one library be GPLv2 and the other GPLv3 they couldn't be used together in one project. LGPL solves nothing because it's all statically linked anyway. And yes, one could licence under both under the user's choice but then GPLv4 comes out and the process repeats itself, and yes one could use GPLv2+ but people aren't exactly willing to licence under a licence that doesn't yet exist and put blind faith into whoever writes it.
Using anything but a permissive licence is a good way to ensure no one will lose your library and someone will just re-implement it under a permissive licence.
C is a completely different landscape. Libraries are larger and the wheel is re-invented more often and most of all dynamic linking is used a lot so the LGPL solves a lot.
- There are also so many G.P.L. violations and nothing is done about it.
I think a big issue is also that it's hard to show actual damages with this kind of copyright violation. It's obviously copyright violation but what damages are there really? Also, there are so many dubious cases where it's not clear whether it is a violation or not.
- Which I feel honestly in part explains why so many prominent figures in Free software development seem to have some mental issues to be honest. They in a way remind me of that person who at one point was responsible for over half of all edits on the Scots Wikipedia.
Even the paid professionals often started to work for free and then were hired by some company and the reality is that someone who is good at something and willing to do it for free is either a very good Samaritan, or there is some other issue at stake and in the end prominent free software figures often have fairly heated public keyboard wars over things with each other and most of all seem strangely fiercely loyal tribalists who suffer from an extreme case of n.i.h.-syndrome.
- Yes, I'm well aware of that, Plasma can be installed on many distributions. How exactly is K.D.E. making their own software distribution benefiting the development of Plasma?
This really feels like they first decided they wanted to make their own distribution for no reason, and then went to search for the niche for it to fill which is the wrong way to do it. Usually someone, who typically does not do anything else at the moment, realizes there is a certain niche that needs to be filled and then decides to make a distribution that fills that niche.
- No, KDE does not need its own distro, that's the issue. They don't need their own method to distribute it which benefits no one.
The idea of a distribution for this specific purpose is best left in the hands of some organization with experience with this specific purpose, not KDE whose experience is developing desktop environments.
How exactly is it “awkward” for them and how exactly does distributing this in any way improve the development process of KDE? They can't even dogfood it obviously.
- It does I believe? I've never tried it myself but I've heard multiple voices say that once you go into the terminal the entire Gentoo stack is just there with portage, equery, qapps and such.
In fact, from what I understand it is in fact not really Gentoo based but Portage-based, as in they for the most part write their own ebuilds and software and from what I know have their own custom init system and display system that's not in Gentoo but they found that Portage was simply very convenient for automating their entire process. The claim that “gentoo is just Portage” is not entirely true, there's still a supported base system that's configured as offered by Gentoo but it's far more flexible than that of most systems of course, granting the user choice over all sorts of fundamental system components.
- That seems like a good niche to exist indeed and many people would probably misunderstand its purpose by it being called a “KDE distribution”. It would perhaps have been better if it were created by some independent group for this purpose and just happened to settle upon KDE as its interface, or rather offer multiple choices to be honest.
- Ehh, I always took the “don't reinvent the wheel” advice in context of “wheels” being very simple things that everyone can create but no one wants to spend time on. It's typically not really a learning exercise to say implement quicksort or some hash table; it simply takes time.
You will also rarely build a better implementation of these things than whatever is in the standard library or even some other library that already exists. If anything, it's better to, if one have a better idea, to contribute one's patches there.
- The thing about writing standards is that if you write standards compiler writers vehemently disagree with, they will just not implement them, and they disagree with it because their consumers do. A standard typically documents what is already happening. This is why some languages call their standards “reports”. They investigate and document what the majority of compilers are currently doing and encourage the others to follow suit.
As for overflow, the reality is that most compilers simply assume it won't happen at this point. They do this because the consumers want it because it simply generates far faster code being able to assume that it won't happen. Yes, people often come with pathological examples to show why this is a bad idea of ridiculous optimizations being made no one expects because compilers assume it won't ever happen, but those are pathological, in practice it really comes down to loops. In many loops, compilers having to assume that loop variables can overflow in theory disables all sorts of optimizations and elisions and in practice they won't overflow and if they overflow that's an unintended bug anyway.
Obviously a a very basic example is a loop adding some counter value to a counter and stopping when the counter is past a certain value. Assuming that integers can overflow, and that thus adding a value can make the counter less than what it used to be in theory obviously disables many optimizations in streamlining the logic. Just in general, assuming overflow can't occur means being able to make the assumption that adding a positive integer to another integer will always produce a larger integer than the original, that is a very powerful assumption for optimizations to be able to make obviously, assuming that overflow can happen removes it that's why it's undefined behavior. Compilers are free to assume it will never happen.
- I have to say, I've read the discussion this generated and it's a bit scary how no one seems to know whether type punning through unions is undefined or not in C, or rather, my conclusion reading it all is more so that many people are wrong and that is defined behavior, but some of the people who are wrong about it are actual GCC compiler developers so it can't be too easy to be right.
- That said, I wouldn't mind an upgrade to the standard of say say if the link be printed above the code in human readable form in some way, the reader would refuse to open it, or at least be configurable to refuse to open it if they not match.
- As far as I know the only form of code execution they support is by the URL datatype which carries the same risks as wel already mentioned anyway.
- It runs inside a web browser though. This is no different from visiting an arbitrary link and running whatever arbitrary code in the Javascript sandbox of that link and one already knows a q.r. code an take one to an arbitrary link.
- > but some people seem to find it useful.
Honestly, it filled a very specific hole for me that I found nowhere else. Everyone is talking about the “unfiltered content” and all those things but to me it was mostly just topical. It was really one of the few places where one could get a good discussion on the internet about Japanese female-oriented entertainment which I'm well aware isn't the first thing people think about with 4chan but pretty much every other forum about Japanese entertainment is completely dominated by male-oriented entertainment, except when they go out of their way to specifically make a board catered to female-oriented entertainment, but that has the side effect that people on those boards end up talking more about gender politics than about the entertainment itself and I just want to talk about my favorite television shows and comic books and really don't care about all the politics.
4chan by it's nature doesn't drown out minority tastes and voices. This really isn't just a “female-oriented entertainment” thing but really any minority taste that just gets drowned out on most boards to the point that it disappears. The only other place I know where one can do this is Tumblr, more or less, but it's a very different experience, not necessarily better or worse but there just isn't this kind of “live discussion” atmosphere and vibe going on on Tumblr about episodes that are currently airing where people post small comments as the episode is airing and they're watching it. It's more for long impressions after it was aired and it doesn't have the same degree of interaction, it's a blogging place, not a message board.
As said, it isn't just that but “obscure taste” in general. You can make a thread on 4chan about some really obscure piece of fiction that no one knows and get a discussion going, half with the people that do it know, in part because it's an imageboard so they're drawn in to an image they recognize and it stands out, and half with people that never heard of it before, see the images in the thread, see it looks interesting and try it out. The images are the key I feel, it lowers the barrier of entry for people to try out something obscure because they see the images which lures them in. It was one of the best places to get a discussion going about some obscure piece of fiction which Tumblr doesn't do either, the only things that are being discussed are the really big titles. There are so many relatively obscure titles I enjoy I will possibly never get to discuss with anyone in my life again if 4chan not come back. I know many of those titles from 4chan because people constantly promote and share fairly obscure things there and the images again sell it.
- > This is a pretty good take! It's because you could verbally attack and fight the 4chan idiots with a swarm of common sense and be lauded for doing that job.
This is actually a big reason why 4chan never messed with my sanity and blood pressure opposed to say Reddit or Twitter. It feels like on 4chan there are some people who are completely off the rails, but they can be insulted and called out. On Reddit or Twitter, it feels like almost everyone is “somewhat of the rails” and they all concentrate among each other, as in almost every Subreddit has some collectively held belief that simply appears as nonsensical to people outside of it, but as much as politely disagreeing will get one blocked by that specific user in many cases, or just banned from the subreddit so it's far more obnoxious. Also, it feels like arguing against an endless current whereas at best on 4chan it's two waves that clash into each other of even size.
4chan is “arguing against an idiot”, Reddit and Twitter becomes “arguing against idiots, being surrounded by them, and very often not even really being allowed to argue lest one be banned”. It's a very frustrating experience that makes one's blood boil.
- It wasn't hard to find things no, but the narrative one often reads is that it's the mainstream consensus there to the universal opinion rather than a fringe opinion which exists and isn't banned from having.
- I'm saying I searched and I couldn't find it but what I did find was many news websites that reported it but said they couldn't confirm these rumors themselves and said they were just that, rumors. I found threads about it on other anonymous textboards where people would have no compunction to post the links and yet they didn't. The news sites don't just say “We obviously won't post the links.” but “We couldn't confirm these rumors.”.
Edit: I finally found one news website willing to actually confirm it though. The Daily Dot claims to have accessed the leaked information and verified it for itself.
- > 4chan is oddly accepting of gay and trans people. I've seen gay and trans porn side by side with bbc and bwc porn posts. Strange to see racist trans porn lovers.
It only seems odd because many people interpret this through a U.S.A. “culture war” lens and “gay people”. You believe they're “accepting of gay people” in the sense of that culture war because of the “gay porn”. In reality, they take more of a classical Graeco-Roman approach to it and believe it's completely normal for the average male to be attracted to cute twinks as the Romans did and often even reject the very notion of “sexual orientations” to begin with. Their “support” is definitely not in the sense of what one would expect of the U.S.A. “culture war”, jokes such as the below illustrate well what the culture is:
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/55/fe/d1/55fed16b625f9c5869587908f...
- Well, so you say, but every single news website that I can find willing to say something on the matter is either The Daily Mail and similar things that also say they based their information on leaks on “social media rumors” or more reputable websites that also say it's a rumor that there's a leak. One would assume if it be so easily found and I'm so incompetent that these news websites could've found it themselves and come with more certain claims.
- It doesn't even describe /pol/. This is what 4chan thinks of /pol/ but when you actually go there there is a pluriformmity of opinions and it's indeed mostly just about current events.
The biggest good thing that came out of 4chan and 8chan to me is that it made me extremely weary to ever trust second-hand reports about some place and made me better at identifying reports that read like “This person dislikes this place, never visited it, and just reasons together what it's like.”. It also made me try Tumblr. I heard terrible things about it how it was filled with “social justice warriors” and stuff and unsurprisingly, when actually trying it it was nothing like that and just a fairly chill place where people mostly blog about fiction and pornography and share their thoughts. Even when ignoring the filter and logging out and going to what is trending, almost no content is political.
I remember when 8chan went down and all the news reports and forum posts basically said it was basically Stormfront but I was there at the time and it was nothing like that. People just posted cat memes, talked about fiction, talked about life and dating and stuff. One had to dig on very specific boards to find that kind of content.
People talk a lot about “places”, online or offline or even fiction that they clearly have no firsthand experience with, and just reason together about what it's like. They just “expect it to be like that” based on some image they create in their head, or some cherry picked examples they've seen and start to treat it like fact. It's especially weird when it's about something they clearly don't like, some kind of book or television series of which, despite clearly disliking it, they can supposedly tell you exactly what it's like... well, they've never seen it, they just reasoned it together in their head based on some things they read about it and their own expectations.
I frequent 4chan a lot; it's nothing like this description indeed. I don't frequent /pol/ because I found the discussions to be completely empty but I tried it and it was nothing like that. Even within 4chan I read all sorts of things about other boards that are just not true when actually visiting them. /pol/ isn't a far right echo chamber, /r9k/ isn't full of lonely incels, /lgbt/ isn't some social justice warrior hub despite what one might read about those places on other boards.
- So you were able to find the leak? Because I see reports that it was hacked repeated as fact everywhere on Daily Mail-tier reliable news websites and Reddit posts, but they are all based on “rumors on social media go about that there was a leak” but I've not been able to find the actual leak searching for it. Obviously not many people want to link it but it's also weird that so many people claim to have so easily been able to find it when I cannot.
Finally, I was there and using it when the website went down and this did not resemble an actual hack but technical issues. First there were a couple of hours where the website was up but no posts went through for anyone except occasionally when a new threat was bumped, mirroring the normal pattern of downtime issues that sometimes occur and then it just went down completely. This doesn't really resemble how a hack plays out but looks more like technical issues to me.
Even now, going to the front page, it loads for me, except very slowly and incompletely. This does not resemble a hack but technical issues.
- Correction: That some subset of the people you mostly meet online tries to get rid off.
You'd be surprised how many don't even realize it's artificial, and/or welcome it. The average Google user is most certainly not similar to the average Hacker News commenter.
- > In ye olden times, the C standard was considered guidelines rather than a ruleset, undefined behavior was closer to implementation-defined behavior than dark magic, and optimizers were stupid enough to make that distinction irrelevant. On a majority of platforms, dereferencing a null pointer compiled and behaved exactly like dereferencing a value at address 0.
> For all intents and purposes, UB as we understand it today with spooky action at a distance didn’t exist.
The first official C standard was from 1989, the second real change was in 1995, and the infamous “nasal daemons” quote was from 1992. So evidently the first C standard was already interpreted that way, that compilers were really allowed to do anything in the face of undefined behavior. As far as I know
- All my friends say “octopodes”.
Some people on the internet keep saying that that's wrong; I find that very strange.
>because we don't pluralize any other word that way.
Certainly we do “platypodes”, “matrices”, “irides”, “clitorides” and “vortices”, are all quite common words.
- No, the problem is very easy, referring by page number is simply ridiculous. As well as all those “(<Family Name>, <year>)” citations,
Besides, in HTML one can directly link to the relevant part.
- Quite so. The font annoys me. This is one of the reasons I hate PDF and why I believe these things should be controlled by the person reading it, not the publisher.
I do not much care what font the auctor finds pleasant to read, but what I find pleasant to read, and this font isn't it, and neither are the colors.
- Or normal keyboards? Many people can type blind. Some learned to do so while born blind, others became blind after they had already learned this skill.
I would assume that the majority of persons on HN are not looking at their keyboard as they type.
- I made these arguments two decades ago when I was still in university that PDF is a horrible format because it's purely præsentational, especially for people with disabilities whose software relies on semantic information. LaTeX last time I used it didn't even have a different symbol for uppercase Alpha and A because the glyphs are indistinguishable.
They argued that PDF was superior because the publisher could control how it looked and it looked the same everywhere but the point is that it should not. Things such as font size and line spacing should be at the control of the consumer, not the publisher. This isn't simply blind people but for instance also persons with dyslexia who use particular fonts to make it easier to read for them. Or in my case, someone who simply gets a headache from fronts and line-spacing that is too big. I've also been using darkmode everywhere for so long now that reading black text on a white surface on a screen gives me a headache.
- So this is another bug introduced by Debian itself by patching things?
I remember that there was a fairly severe one which was caused by patching OpenSSL I think? But I remember the change they made being fairly weird and no one understood why but it was easy to see that it would introduce a vulnerability.
No, just if you want it to be used with anything that isn't that exact same GPL licence.
> Otherwise, when releasing your project under GPLv3+, you don't have to put blind faith into the FSF; you can designate a proxy which will decide whether the new version should be allowed for your project or not. This proxy can be yourself, or it can be a different organisation you choose to trust. Plus, I'm pretty sure the GPL allows you to make linking exceptions of your liking.
That's the same as just licencing under the GPLv3 and later retroactively deciding to also give the GPLv4 option when liking that licence. The issue is, what if you don't? Then your code can't be combined with any GPLv4 library.
The simple reality is that crates that have incompatible licences, and GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, cannot be used together in one distributed project without committing copyright infringement. The thing with MIT is that it's compatible with about every single licence out there.