that’s not entirely true for windows. windows does have containers natively, and there is a native docker engine for windows that runs native software
they also support containerd and some other runtimes
in certainly not an advocate for windows, but it does exist if you’re a complete masochist
it was always wild to me back in the day when so many container images were based on ubuntu… was like PLEASE debian is functionally identical here at like 1/10th the base container size!
if i found out someone was using a voice changer in an interview, that’d be a massive red flag for me
don’t forget the original comment though: unable to upgrade without reinstall, and glibc incompatibility
i’m not saying that changes the latter comment, but it’s certainly far from the experience for every single person every single time… windows is like macdonalds: it’s the same horrible thing every time but it’s consistent
i’ve never understood why there’s not a good option for using one of the plethora of server management tools with prebuilt helpers for workstations to mimic group policy
like the tools we have on linux to handle this are far, far more powerful
I’m sure Fedora is full of binary blobs and not-so-free software
fedora is staunchly opposed to non-free software in their default distro … that spat a few weeks ago with OBS was related to that AFAIK
unsure about like signed blobs for “security” services but i imagine they’d be very limited, and optional
rather than sticking a white label on Fedora and call it something else
but for what benefit? no matter what’s trying to be achieved, starting with a very full-featured, robust OS that’s widely used is going to serve you very well… not just technically (less work for the same outcome), but for human reasons
there are loads of guides out there for how to fix fedora issues, few for guix… loads of RPMs that are compatible with fedora, and i can only imagine fewer packages for guix
and then if you’re talking about server OSes - and actually workstations too - managing them with tools like ansible etc… fedora is going to have off the shelf solutions
just Fedora with different theme
well, the actual software and configuration i’d argue aren’t the important part - owning the infrastructure is the important part… package mirrors, distribution methods (eg a website), being able to veto or replace certain packages, and the branding (or regulation) that draws people to it… being able to roll out a security patch to every installation without a 3rd party okaying it, for example
i’d say if it happens it should start with focusing on:
though there is the argument that workstation and user desktop are close enough to each other that user desktop should be above server, but i’d imagine it’d be more of a “home user” than gamer situation. i could imagine some regulations around refurbishing old tech with this kind of OS too, and this would be more about low spec machines (that’d help workstations too)
alternative POV: it’s entirely FOSS so there’s little control that can be exerted from its use. it’s also entirely free, so use is extracting value without providing anything in return. by its use, you’re taking resources to maintain, host, etc and providing nothing in return
similar reason to why i don’t use ecosia with an ad blocker: by blocking ads you’re using their resources without giving back and thus you’re taking resources away from the charity
there’s actually a bunch of these, but healthcare tends to fall prey to “too much money, too many consultants, fancy brochures”
i imagine that it’s only the UI - they’d have to implement all the profiling etc themselves… but it does mean they have a framework to build the tools into, and not having to build the UI rather than starting from scratch which is a huge help
waterfall:
i think it’s also incorrect: the basic premise of arch is minimally configured, do whatever you like… no installer is going to allow a user to do everything they want, so that’s kinda not “the arch way”… it’s not some gatekeeping BS, it’s just not what arch is about, and that’s fine… that’s why there are spinoff distros that disagree and make their own - this is FOSS after all
personally, no i don’t. perhaps it’s because i skim a lot of code and im just used to it? i’m not sure, but honest truth i find capitals mostly redundant. perhaps useful to add context (names, acronyms, etc)… i add them for uncommon acronyms, but common things that people know i tend to skip too
you can say it’s lazy, and i’ll absolutely take that: it’s totally lazy… but there’s no weird effort or external image decision involved in it?
i am on a phone. i did not press any extra keys to make my phone not do caps - this is because i have changed my phone to this, because when you write about technical things, capitalisation is important - lower case everything is lower case everything. i’m not about to start hitting an extra key at random times when this is perfectly fine. i’ve never had an issue reading all lower case
it’s not try-hard; it’s practical for people who work with tech
git is exactly as unfriendly as a distributed source control system that doesn’t shy away from power user commands needs to be
… sure it’s difficult to comprehend, but yknow what’s worse? getting into a bullshit situation and having broken garbage repos in every other “user friendly” system on the planet
it’s absolutely not his. he is a major and important contributor and person in the community, but linux belongs to humanity and to the community that has now written far more of linux than linus has
right! okay, i believe that’s theoretically possible, but the tools don’t exist - which is the constant problem with btrfs
… and i could be completely wrong too - this is getting to the limits of my knowledge
this is absolutely the issue… the specific thing he did is irrelevant: you play by the rules, or you gtfo… it doesn’t matter how valuable your contributions are, if you can’t treat people with respect that leads to a toxic culture that eats at the project from the inside
linus was renowned for his insults… he realised (or was told; doesn’t matter at this point) that that behaviour was inappropriate, and his behaviour is now more tempered because it’s important to be able to ensure everyone feels like their work is valued and they’re not just shoveling shit for someone else
and i say this all as someone who is absolutely ecstatic about the prospect of bcachefs and think that his code is among the most important being contributed in the past years and for the next few years: WE NEED A NEW STABLE FILESYSTEM more than almost anything… but if you allow bad behaviour, it erodes the collaborative culture and you just can not allow that in the largest collaborative software project humanity has ever created
I don’t know enough about btrfs to know whether this is feasible but perhaps it could be made a bit more log-structured such that old data is overwritten first which would allow you to simply roll back the filesystem state to a wide range of previous generations, of which some are hopefully not corrupted. You’d then discard the newer generations which would allow you to keep using the filesystem.
i’m not sure i understand quite what you’re suggesting, but BTRFD is a copy on write filesystem
so when you write a block, you’re not writing over the old data: you’re writing to empty space, and then BTRFS is marking the old space as unused - or in the case of snapshots, marking it to be kept as old data
you might be able to try a live version of a distro to see how your hardware functions before taking the plunge