/tech/ - Technology

>>>/agdg/ - Amateur Game Development General

>>>/biz/ - Business and Finance (and cryptocurrencies)

>>>/cyber/ - Cyberpunk & Science Fiction

>>>/emacs/ - GNU Emacs

>>>/sci/ - Science and Mathematics

>>>/electronics/ - Electronics Engineering

>>>/laboratory/ - STEM Discussion and STEM Shitposting

>>>/hamradio/ - Amateur Radio

>>>/lv/ - Libre Video Games

>>>/make/ - Make stuff

>>>/netplus/ - Networks and Plus

>>>/prog/ - Programming

>>>/rice/ - Desktop and Phone Ricing

>>>/t/ - Torrents & Trackers

>>>/templeos/ - The 64-Bit Temple Operating System

>>>/vape/ - Vaporizers

>>>/vir/ - Virtual Reality

>>>/wg/ - Wallpapers General

Nerve Center combination: https://nerv.8ch.net/tech/agdg/biz/cyber/emacs/sci/electronics/laboratory/hamradio/lv/make/netplus/prog/rice/t/templeos/vape/vir/wg/

>>961178

All sources say next year.

>>961150

This, except Gnome is already there and doing just that.

>>961124

It's an African word! Fitting.

>>961107

What do we gain from making software access-able to the average person? I would say very little. People should stop wasting their time on this. If anything we should be working on alienating average users.

It's not wrong to develop free software to make it easy to use. The question is for what reason do you do it? If the matter is simply "to have bigger adoption numbers" then this implies that the masses will move away from free software as soon as they are attracted by other non-free software that can offer greater convenience or greater capabilities.

Personally, I believe in personal responsibility, that users should take responsibility by investing into the free software that they want to see. In order for this to happen, users need to be convinced that freedom is important and that investment into freedom is the most sensible long term way for living.

>>961187

bigger adoption numbers may have its own merit, if the world even has rules anymore, tech giants will adapt to the demand

>>961183

>What do we gain from making software access-able to the average person

The more popular Linux is, the more developers will go to it, and the more everything (see: hardware and drivers and other software) supports Linux.

>>960712

>nouveau preety bad for 3d

lulwut faggot. The nouveau drivers on latest mesa and kernel git outperform the blob now if you use the right generation of nvidia hardware and the new auto-reclocking kernel options. The nouveau opengl stack is more buggy though for newer opengl functions making them less then useful for the newest games. But for older games and emulaiton it either matches or beats the blob. Or atleast for me it does. Granted I haven't used the blob in years now so maybe the blob's performance has improved for the same hardware years down the line unlikely. Now it just needs opencl 2.0 support and the nvidia blob is useless garbage henceforth.

>>960658

They aren't fully libre, but you can't deny that making more of the code FOSS is a good thing.

> AMD is making their opengl stack FOSS so that others will maintain it in the future for them

Duh. That's one of the major advantages of FOSS, that other people can maintain things. That's one of the driving arguments for it and was the reason the whole fucking movement was birthed. You act like it's a bad thing that a company is opening things up so the community can do the work better for them and have better drivers for themselves.

That said, they have staff working on AMDGPU, so they haven't abandoned it to the community yet. Your fears are unfounded as of yet.

Everybody still wants the firmware blobs to be opened up, and that is a valid argument againts AMD, but with arguments like "they just want other people to do the work for them", you sound like an anti-FOSS shitter. Their motivation is less important than the result, and more FOSS is better.

Nvidia has been deblobbed up to GTX800, which is 4 years old, and AMDGPU has been deblobbed up to Fiji, which is 3 years old. It's not as bad as you imply. AMD isn't great, but they're better than Nvidia when it comes to actually supporting FOSS drivers. AMD has FOSS drivers that are better than the proprietary ones, they release technical papers to the public, and they have proprietary firmware blobs. Nvidia gives no whitepapers, don't have any official FOSS drivers, and has mandatory signed firmware blobs. Neither is ideal, but one is obviously a better choice than the other if you want modern graphics hardware and care about freedom.

>>960989

>up to fiji

Where's the source code to the GPU intialization firmware that has been made FOSS for up to FIJI then? I thought that was in a blob that AMD hadn't made FOSS and will never make FOSS. I might switch to AMD hardware in the future if you can find it for me.

>>961206

There's nothing stopping Intel from just slapping 4 dies on a single chip package and making a fuckhuge heat spreader for it from a technical standpoint, they don't because its retarded

Bump

>>960972

>Torvalds, the Senator, and the Arstechnica writer all value their privacy and have found WireGuard to be very good?

(((pure coincidence)))

>>961181

>the old point by point Reddit rebuttal-reply

They really need to get some fresh blood down there at Shill Central.

>>961200

And you pointing this out without any rebuttal is a sophic move?

>>961199

This. Bump.

>>961188

don't forget that these quality keyboards are BOLTED to the case, so good luck user-servicing them

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUaJ8pDlxi8

While it might not be possible (given current theoretical models anyway) to travel through time, it might be possible to send signals through time in a variety of ways. My suspicion is that there are a number of time phones.

>>961172

>injecting javascript into the space-time continuum to change the name of children's books

WE'VE JUST FIGURED OUT SOMETHING MASSIVE

>>961164

What causes the type of insanity that leads people to believe anything in posts like that? Are heavy metals in ditch weed to blame?

>>961071

see

>>961172

From my most recent readings of what actual scientists believe, not lunatic conspiratards, it may be possible to send information backwards through time but the only way we're able to move forward through time is to move so fast that time passes slower for the traveler relative to the rest of the universe.

This is an extremely mundane fact that's taken into account every single day by any company or government that has satellites in orbit. We've observed this on clocks on space stations as well. Congratulations, we Terminator now.

Backwards time travel is thought to be likely impossible, as it could fuck with causality unless it turns out to be infinite number of dimensions, and at it's best could only send back bits of data.

Musk doesn't have a time machine though, he's not even that rich after all.

Nice link, OP. Made me want to try it.

>>961002

Do you have any book recommendations, or is the online tutorial good enough?

http://www.tcl.tk/man/tcl8.5/tutorial/Tcl0.html

It does the trick, but it seems a bit uninspired.

>What would the world look like today if Tcl/Tk

like 5x the injection vulns, directly into your daemons and desktop

>>961092

the tutorial and the wiki are good enough. I learned it on the job so never had a structured approach.

Try going through SICP with it, I think you'll have a blast

>>961093

this is probably true. I don't think Tcl was ever written for that, but it's a great extension language.

>>960994

>love and respect it deserved

They were dogshit. That whole era was awful with everything either being Motif or Tk.

Because you want your OS to be so niche you can't do anything

>>961014

I don't know if it's changed since, but I recall arch requiring the manual editing of a lot of config files during the setup itself. It's not necessary and nobody should derive pride from being able to do it.

>>961023

>I recall arch requiring the manual editing of a lot of config files during the setup itself.

5 files (6 if you use a non "us" keyboard layout). Mostly uncommenting a line or writing a single line. Takes 15 seconds per file. Maybe 30 if you've never done it before.

>It's not necessary

It is if you want to install Arch.

>and nobody should derive pride from being able to do it.

Nobody said that anyone should. What the guy you're responding to said is that it's not a headache.

And it's not.

What distro would allow me to run different isolated copies of same software without dependency hell in a manner portable apps allow doing it on Windows?

>>961186

Any distro with a kernel from the past several years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docker_(software)

>>960920

Okay. So how does Javascript interact with the document? What kind of API model do you propose to allow Javascript to access the different parts of the document?

>>958003

>what a nightmare for the incoming web programmers

I don't think web dev has to be awful, but any time I'm mildly curious about it, the tools upon tools upon tools associated with it inevitably have me pulling my hair out. Something invariably breaks along the way and suddenly I'm wasting my time managing some bullshit dependencies or cross compiler or some other over-engineered numale shit instead of writing any code.

Compare that to my intro to desktop programming, which was writing a single Scheme expression into a text file and then seeing it work instantly. I could get straight to the heart of the matter.

I get that webdev has to be more complex because browsers are complex, but the entire ecosystem that surrounds javascript is so bloated, buggy, and steered by cargo cults.

>>960920

> That's a problem with the browser, or more specifically, the DOM API

No, the processor leaks data. Spectre-class attacks allows a JavaScript script to access all data of the browser, whether or not it is accessible through the DOM.

>>960023

>>In the browser? Trash.

>What would you have browsers run?

Fucking nothing. Run that shit on your servers. Oh, bullshit NIH gui's and all that other bullshit isn't cost effective now? Fuck you. Suck my dick. Noscript for life.

>>961120

>webdev has to be more complex

>install apache

>make an index.html

>maybe even install a database

wow much complexity

webdev != javascript soycuckery

>>960864

>get a job goy or you wont have any drive

don't bunch me with your retarded shit. The first of your greentext lines were perfectly valid

>>960944

ignore that guy, he's probably scrambling to get ready to go back to high school in the next few weeks

>>954147

>carbs are thirsty

Not necessarily. The increases in power and economy we've seen in newer cars have a lot more to do with computer-aided design processes than they do with computerized injection. The ability to simulate an engine makes it much easier to optimize it before even constructing a prototype. Some carbureted vehicles could get 20-40 MPG. See Hondas from the 1970s, for example.

The problem today is that most of the off-the-shelf carburetors currently available are continuations of the shittiest designs in the past, and usually go on top of engines that are not at all designed for economy. Speaking to burger carbs, Holleys are an inefficient and crude design from the 1950s that are good at going fast and absolutely nothing else. Edelbrock still produces the Carter AFB, which is a carb that OEMs stopped using in 1968 because the shitty weighted secondary air doors were a bad design that couldn't pass emissions testing even then. Edelbrock's higher end AVS is a continuation of the slightly improved design used by OEMs through 1971, but it's still not particularly excellent by any standard. It was a low cost hack to let a fundamentally flawed design limp along for a few more years until the Thermoquad was ready to replace it. It looks to me like their new AVS2 models might actually be pretty good as far as fuel atomization goes due to their redesigned boosters, but I haven't seen any real world data on that yet. Most other new carbs on the market are variations of the basic Holley design (QFT, Demon, etc.) with a higher price tag.

The Quadrajet and it's two barrel cousin the Dualjet were actually pretty efficient especially in the later years, but the Quadrajet in particular usually went on big V8 engines that were designed for either high output power or low measurable emissions levels rather than fuel economy so it never really lived up to its full potential for economy in stock applications. A lot of the 1980s models had electronic mixture feedback control on the primary side on top of an otherwise fully mechanical carburetor, which made them pretty close to a proper EFI system in terms of efficiency.

>>961098

There's also simple things like using water injection to let you run lean without burning through valves,pistons, or cylinder walls, and more exotic stuff like on board fuel reformers or capturing exhaust heat to convert it to back useful work instead of just waste.

>>960877

>ECU

Botnet that can be controlled by the OBD 2.0 system via

>DAB/FM/AM Radio, to save your sanity

Which has internet access via DAB. If using FM/AM then you can be listened in on just like the germans in WWII were.

>The Airbag CU and the airbags, to save your face

This I agree with if it is faraday caged and on its own internal system and battery for safety and security purposes.

>>960875

The ECU is fucking botnet because if you direct enough radio waves as to EMP the ECU your whole car gets (((shut down))). Common street police have these radar guns that can shut your ride down because they feel like it. That's if you are stupid enough to be caught inside a vehicle made after 1996.

>>961105

Or the big one no company will ever implement. Misting the gasoline into the engine as to increase fuel effeciency greatly. As in gasous form you don't need as much of it to get the proper compression ratio for fuel effieciency. You do realise that kikes pay these big companies not to increase the fuel effieciency so that gasoline remains inflated in price, right?

>>961153

Wait, are we talking about the same thing? Because I wasn't part of the floating point theory discussion above. My point is I'd like it if C let me ask for IEEE floating point explicitly so that I always know how my program will behave. I'm not against floating point in any way. It will be fast on most machines and always behave according to how I understand floating point. Same thing about fixed point; I'd like it if I could pretend everything was 2's complement, and not have to worry about my compiler deleting overflow checks because they're undefined dead code.

>>961155

C doesn't usually have tail call elimination although I'm sure there's a gcc flag for it.

>>961166

GCC does do TCO. It's a pretty basic optimization. Just because C doesn't mandate it doesn't mean compilers won't do it.

>>961169

It does it sometimes. That the programmer can't control when makes it dangerous.

No refugees, you have to die in the sea.

Isn't 4chan a botnet site? It forces you to train google recognition ai that will eventually be used against humanity every time you post.

>>961146

>>961147

>>961151

>8gaggers not realizing their owner is selling their data

>>961158

there is a solution for that but you are too retarded to carefully look at the front page. better make way for the natural selection.

>>961048

doesn't matter unless the host also runs openbsd, and it doesnt matter when the processor itself is fucked

theo de raadt:

>"You are absolutely deluded, if not stupid, if you think that a worldwide collection of software engineers who can't write operating systems or applications without security holes, can then turn around and suddenly write virtualization layers without security holes."

>>961049

Maybe true for Xen and KVM, but if seL4 can be turned into a hypervisor, and put on a processor that doesn't have the bad design bugs, then it could work.

>>961054

>if seL4 can be turned into a hypervisor

That's pretty much all that's been done with it.

>>961046

>At Packet, we're out to Build a Better Internet™ by supercharging the container revolution with smart, API-driven bare metal. Our platform brings the price and performance benefits of bare metal servers to the cloud, powering highly-available performance workloads through a unique, never-congested network.

>Our goal is to make it easier for online innovators to succeed with infrastructure as they push the envelope of performance and value for their users. We do that by removing complexity wherever we can: elegant software, simple pricing, and forward-looking solutions. And robots - gotta have robots!

This doesn't ring any alarm bells for you?

>>961148

>supercharging the container revolution with smart, API-driven bare metal

Doesn't really make sense to me. I thought you were maybe some /pol/ack whining about the Rothschild guy.