[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / britpol / fast / general / komica / marx / monarchy / tacos / tribute ]

/tech/ - Technology

Expect frequent attacks during the next two weeks as we approach the US midterm elections.
September 2018 - 8chan Transparency Report
Email
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 3 per post.


File: 97e1ea6579621ed⋯.png (141 B, 225x150, 3:2, logo.png)

File: e1bcb8327e98f55⋯.jpg (76.04 KB, 766x772, 383:386, the_worst_javascript.jpg)

 No.969082

There is a big problem with a lot of free software nowadays, and that's bloat. There's a really good article put out by the suckless community on this issue (https://suckless.org/philosophy). This page does good at describing the practical problems of bloated software, but I want to talk about the ethical issues surrounding "bloatware".

Now, technically, all bloatware put under a free licence is free software. But that doesn't mean that you can edit it, at least not easily. Freedom 1 of the Four Essential Freedoms states that the user has the freedom to "study how the program works." How the hell can you study the program if it's all jumbled up? This produces the same problem that proprietary blobs do: a gateway from studying how the program works. It may be easier than machine program to read, but given enough lines, the program becomes virtually unreadable.

What are some examples of this?

> chromium, firefox, most GUI web browsers

> bloated window managers

> anything GNU touches

> the big elephant in the room that came from Red Hat

> the Linux kernel (there's no way one program needs 4.8 million lines)

Now, how can we solve this? Start by using simple software. Don't use urxvt, use st. Don't use i3, use dwm. Now that's not to shill the suckless community. But they're really the only ones pushing on this issue, even though they only come at it from a practical perspective. Start by rolling up your sleeves and learning how to patch these programs so they do the things you want them to do.

Another good idea is to build a LFS build using only simple programs. Rather than the GNU utilities, use some of the BSD utilities, or Plan 9. Ideally this should be available in a distro, but that probably won't happen for a while. If anyone wants to work on this with me over the long term, let me know in this thread.

Pic not related, but it is awful programming.

 No.969088

>>969082

>the Linux kernel (there's no way one program needs 4.8 million lines)

It does. You have to thank diversity (in hardware) for that.


 No.969096

Nothing screams "virgin" more than a tech autist masturbating over how sui generis he is for using minimal software. Let's not forget: the C programming language is an extremely unsafe, hacky language in which everything is a member pointer. It has no array bounds checking, you can return pointers to temporary stack memory, and the language is so bad that compilers for the language will remove integer overflow and underflow checks because those checks use undefined behavior, you can use variables which are uninitialized and thus contain junk memory.


 No.969097

>>969082

>There's a really good article put out by the suckless community

dohoho post discarded.


 No.969099

>>969096

>Let's not forget: the C programming language is an extremely unsafe, hacky language

Let's also not forget your post went through several hundred million lines of C to reach me and it went quite well, while webdevs like in the OP have trouble writing 100 lines of code without creating a disaster.


 No.969100

>>969082

>suckless

More like featureless. Gotta love recompiling all my shit just to slightly customize it.

>LFS

>Plan 9

So, you have no idea what you're talking about.

GNU software is bloated because when it was developed the quality wasn't the goal, the goal was to provide a free alternatives to proprietary tools. If instead of bitching and making more "alternatives" people would just contribute to GNU we wouldn't have such a problem.

And in case of Linux, you're looking at the problem from top. OpenBSD might be more minimal but it doesn't support nearly as much hardware as Linux does. Before "fixing" the software consider "fixing" the hardware first.


 No.969101

do not take >>>/tech/969096 's bait


 No.969102

>>969088

Then you just patch the kernel so it supports your hardware. Ideally companies should provide the patches themselves, but community patches are cool too.

>>969100

>Gotta love recompiling all my shit just to slightly customize it

Patching st takes absolutely no time at all. It's just as easy as making changes to your vimrc file. I don't know a lick of C, and yet I am able to run patch and make. Fuck right off.

>>969096

this gives me a smug anime face


 No.969103

>>969099

Argumentum ad populum. Ada has advanced support for type checking, you can create types with specific ranges (e.g. an integer with values from 0 to 12), you can write modules, exceptions (in other languages the system gives you an error code you can't just ignore or the software will crash), 'generics' which means you can write a data structure (like lists) which will work on different kinds of data, like integers, floating point numbers, and strings. So, by writing just one function for all data types instead of writing functions for all data types specifically, the language has run-time checking and so many other features.

The kicker of Ada is that it's a higher level language than C and about a million times safer. The GCC compiler framework generates the fastest code for C, but GCC also supports Ada and the code generated for Ada is nearly as fast as the code for C. It also supports every architecture/platform that is supported by GCC.

You'd think, why do programmers hate Ada? C programmers in the 80's would use so many bullshit excuses like that the compilers for the language were expensive, or the language is too complicated (it's much simpler than C in day to day usage). The real reason is because they're just too lazy to learn Ada.

The reason for 'bloat' is because C makes it difficult to write good, maintainable, secure code. To you morons everything that isn't C is "bondage-and-discipline". Imagine the horror of using 1950's programming language features and practices.

>and it went quite well, while webdevs like in the OP have trouble writing 100 lines of code without creating a disaster.

C/UNIX idiots have a hard time writing curl/wget (pure C) without a thousand vulnerabilities (which they have an attitude about, and refuse to fix).


 No.969104

>>969099

What sort of argument is that?

If his kernel had keep written in Ada, it would've been serveral hundred million lines of Ada. Or Rust. Or Erlang, or Elixir, or Lisp, or Java, or whatever. You're making an inane argument that C is better because it's more popular - that's not even an argument. Maybe it's worse, because it's so easy to learn even retards are using it.


 No.969119

>>969100

>instead of bitching and making more "alternatives" people would just contribute to Windows we wouldn't have such a problem


 No.969120

File: 67433818f4109e6⋯.jpg (148.26 KB, 640x479, 640:479, DgzSF_0XUAE3Zsb.jpg)

>>969082

>hurr durr your software has too many features so that makes it proprietary


 No.969121

Bloat is not a problem for free software. It's your own problem if you refuse to maintain your own free software that has the bloat trimmed away.


 No.969125

>>969121

The user can't predict when a project gets to such a state. All he can do is leave the project when it does happen, or try and improve it.


 No.969126

>>969121

>>969125

Also why should the users fix the program, rather than have the program not be bloated/broken in the first place?


 No.969128

>still not using openbsd

this will never ever get fixed on linux


 No.969129

suckless is a bunch of nazis, they literally did a tiki torch march only a month after the charlottesville murder


 No.969132

>>969096

array bound checking slows down the program defintly with high array orientated workloads. also it is not really needed unless you are a nigger monkey and cant design a way to put it in yourself for arrays in the program that will have the problem.


 No.969140

>>969129

If that's meant to be dissuasive, you're on the wrong board kiddo.


 No.969141

>>969082

Is there really that much that can be achieved from making software understandable, when for the past 40 years the hardware it's running on is a proprietary black box?


 No.969144

>>969082

>it's not free software unless the code is nice and pretty like the way I want it

I can't


 No.969145

>array bound checking

Who the fuck other than retards need this? Do your damn math before you write code.

<b-but I just wanna write code, not think!

And that's why software in general is so shit today, you outsource all that thinking to the runtime environment, so your software ends up bloated and inefficient because the runtime environment has to correct for how fucking retarded you are.


 No.969147

It's not an easy problem to solve, but avoiding Linux and GNU/Aids is a huge step in the right direction. Despite being maligned for its "cuck" licensing, BSDs are far more community driven than Linux, which is basically another arm of the military industrial complex at this point.


 No.969156

>>969132

>array bound checking slows down the program defintly with high array orientated workloads.

If you write your code reasonably well you can minimize this. Loops that iterate over a whole array don't have any more checks than a c program.


 No.969160

>>969156

>having to work around your programming language because of a useless feature made for people who cant do math

bounds checking fags are weak


 No.969163

>>969160

>I love remote code execution vulnerabilities caused by append 2 strings together

look faggot your computer can deal with a few extra MB of RAM usage and a few extra clock cycles for bounds checking. It's not 1987 any more.


 No.969164

>>969163

Exactly that's why modern software is so fast.


 No.969166

>>969163

do you happen to be indian


 No.969167

File: dfb3158079aac51⋯.jpg (32.03 KB, 600x450, 4:3, dfb3158079aac511dfb594ea08….jpg)

>>969166

Enjoy your buffer overflows larper.


 No.969170

>>969167

you know you can implement your own bounds checking when debugging and for certain applications where you could get an over flow. its really not that hard. you dont need a compiler to hold your hand.


 No.969171

>>969170

Yeah you can also implement your own exceptions, core data types, socket api. But we don't because that's fucking retarded.

Thank god you can just run ASan these days and catch most things.


 No.969176

>Calibre

Perhaps the epitome of open sores bloat. Ignoring its abundance of technical flaws, it's a good example of a nonfree interaction paradigm, because it hits that sweet spot where it's valuable enough that it changes the way people perceive the problem it solves and thus necessitates its use for many–but too blobby and ambiguous in structure for any real competing software to crop up. And it's borderline violating the GPL, because you can't fucking compile it unless you use his own homebrew of qt hacks.

>Hydrus

Intentionally obscure commentary, buggy, broad stack for no good reason, not packaged for pip, and distributed under the broken wtfpl license (e.g. might as well be copyright). Equally as brilliant as Calibre, horribly done. You can't blame him, though; he probably doesn't know better. Even a layman can see he's inexperienced, and he's part of that weird niche of Windows users who also write mostly free software. Hydrus is a technically-flawed piece of software, but it's really valiant in thought.


 No.969183

>>969082

Without a good up front definition, "bloat" is a buzzword.

It doesn't help when you use shit logic such as

>But that doesn't mean that you can edit it, at least not easily.

to devolve into "no true free software" retardation.

Also claiming no program ever needs 5M LoC is insanity.


 No.969188

File: 0b1f3d69438eb9b⋯.png (62.93 KB, 627x533, 627:533, lin-usage.png)

>>969082

>i3 is bloat because it has 16 KLOC

Maybe you're just shit at reading code?

>there's no way one program needs 4.8 million lines

Pic related is a breakdown of the linux source by disk usage. hint: drivers are hard, so is supporting ten different arches


 No.969209

>dwm

bspwm is better


 No.969219

>>969209

Every time someone says this they have no idea how to use dwm and use it like some retarded tiling wm.


 No.969222

>>969088

It's less about the diversity in hardware and more because we no longer directly program it.

Operating systems are bloated today primarily because of the driver model and hardware not being directly programmed.


 No.969226

>>969222

>and hardware not being directly programmed.

Yes because what we all need is for every program to manually implement the driver every fucking time. That will really save us headache i'm sure.


 No.969229

>>969209

>>969219

never used bspwm but why is it better than dwm, in your gay opinion? i3 is nice as well but nothing beats dwm in terms of functionality, speed and minimal mental overhead. yes it's a fuck to tweak and re-compile, but this has an added benefit that once you've got a config to your liking, you are less likely to fuck with it every 10 minutes like some bored housewife.


 No.969233

>>969226

>manually implement the driver every fucking time

You've read my words but I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

How about just reading from and writing to some memory? That's exactly how it was done before(look at almost any 1980's computer) and it worked quite well.

The AMD Radeon R9 290X saw a 50% performance increase when they removed part of the Radeon driver and used Mantle to interact directly with the GPU. You can get rid of the driver bloat and increase performance; there just has to be enough interest to stop wasting resources on fancy unnecessary abstractions.


 No.969247

>wants programs with no bloat

>writes them in C

lmao, unicucks strike again


 No.969250

>>969222

>Operating systems are bloated today primarily because of the driver model and hardware not being directly programmed.

No. Linux is bloated cuz don't have a proper interface and driver architecture so they just put the code for each driver in the same repo.


 No.969272

I'm not going to dumb down my code just because a brainlet doesn't understand it.

>>969145

Your argument is flawed. With bounds checking you still need to make sure you are within the bounds yourself, else your program will be terminated. If you think C is better by having a more dangerous side effect if you get it wrong then you are being silly. Thinking you elite by using at inferior tool makes to sense. It's like thinking that using a rock is better to nail nails because it is harder to do.

<This makes people not think as much

No, I'm able to think more about what actually matters that trivial things.


 No.969275

The suckless crowd is a bunch of sperglords. Yeah, thanks for dmenu, but everything else you make sucks LOL dick.

Oh, by the way, how's that Static Linux project going? :^)))))


 No.969285

>>969275

I will say, as a die-hard Emacs user, I love almost everything suckless does to death, especially surf. There are a lot of idiots out there who think adhering to "true Unix" tradition means a bunch of shitty ncurses interfaces, but suckless is one of the few groups that really understands the appeal of Unix tools, because they're not shitty ncurses interfaces, and they're not even shitty, interactive CLI interfaces; Unix tools are one-dimensional. They're singular in there application, with no superlatives or quality-of-life features, and a pleasant side-affect of that is that they're light and pipe-able. Emacs works best as a frontend for software like that. Surf is somewhat neutered, so it depends on dmenu to sort of carry things from point "A" to point "B", something that what otherwise be poorly-implemented by the browser itself, like issuing search search queries and searching for arbitrary text, but the funny thing is, Emacs does precisely that, except better. I can interact with Surf via Emacs in precisely the same way dmenu is used to interact with Surf, and that simply wouldn't be possible if it weren't for suckless' paradoxically humble elitism. Emacs loves simple applications, because it's easy to take something intentionally shallow and effectively create your own toolkit with Elisp. Whereas traditionally, you would rely on a normal window manager to handle all your surf sessions, you can handle all your surf sessions with a number of Emacs interaction paradigms, you can sort them by name, by window element, by buffer type and manipulate multiple buffers at once–all with fuzzy search, because Emacs is a window manager, too, with EXWM, and whereas modern DE's struggle to even talk to other components even within itself, consummate integration is a necessary prerequisite of Emacs.


 No.969286

>>969272

Only tards not knowing the price of a branch on most µarchs will promote bound checking. Now, bound checking for debug builds is sensible.


 No.969289

>>969219

>>969229

Because, unlike dwm, keybinding is left to a separate application, talking with an appropriate RPC client to bspwm itself, as it should be. Its config file isn't parsed, too, it's just a shell script, since everything (including configuration) is configured with the RPC client (bscpc).


 No.969290

>>969275

Come on, there's st too.

>>969289

Also, there's no builtin status bar. I should also add that it uses XCB, instead of Xlib.


 No.969306

>>969082

That problem is caused by C. Doing anything in C needs a lot of code. Code is duplicated many times and everyone has to reinvent wheels instead of doing it once and sharing the code. Better languages can do more with less code.

> the Linux kernel (there's no way one program needs 4.8 million lines)

It's over 16 million now.

>>969096

Those checks could be done in hardware at almost the same speed as not doing them. Lisp machines can check array bounds in parallel.

>>969099

>Let's also not forget your post went through several hundred million lines of C

That means C really sucks if it needs that much code to send and process a few hundred bytes of text. Lisp machines, Xerox computers, mainframes, and so on could do a lot more with a lot less code. Checking for overflows in assembly is one extra instruction or part of the same instruction if it traps. In C, it's complicated bullshit code that has to be repeated over and over again and can't be optimized for the hardware you're using. The PDP-11 had an overflow flag, so you can't blame hardware for this mistake.

>>969126

>Also why should the users fix the program, rather than have the program not be bloated/broken in the first place?

That's a "feature" of all UNIX software. AT&T's proprietary UNIX had the same problems and the same mentality of blaming the user for all of them.

>>969272

>Thinking you elite by using at inferior tool makes to sense. It's like thinking that using a rock is better to nail nails because it is harder to do.

A lot of people are puzzled by this, but it only makes sense to me if there was heavy shilling involved.

>Also, only in the land of software would anyone actually suggest that one should not use a better tool, technique, process, whatever to build your product, because most of your _competition_ is using the inferior tool, technique, process, whatever.

>Jon S Anthony (jsa @ alexandria.organon.com) 1997/06/05

My reply to a discussion on another list concerning shell
output redirection:

>> What's going on is that you're overflowing the *shell's*
>> output buffer. When you do <prog> > <file> you're asking
>> the shell to capture all the output from <prog> and when
>> it's done, stuff that into <file>. As you've noticed,
>> there's not much of a buffer there and when you've filled
>> it up it goes kablooie.

...producing no error message or useful diagnostic, of
course. Such wasteful civilities are obviously far beyond
the ``small is beautiful'' design philosophy of which Weenix
Unies are so fond. And you weren't actually expecting the
shell to be designed to buffer its output correctly without
segfaulting, were you? As a user, keeping system programs
from wetting their pants is, after all, YOUR responsibility.


 No.969308

>>969306

>points inevitable cost of bloated handholding

>h-hardware will solve it!

Like a clockwork.


 No.969313

File: 590c92e6696b1c5⋯.png (326.47 KB, 895x429, 895:429, FuckBSD.png)

>>969082

>Don't use urxvt, use st

St cannot be daemonized, making it considerably heavier than urxvt when used in a tiling window manager setup.

>Don't use i3, use dwm.

Don't use either. X11 is bloated. Use Sway.

>>969088

Pretty much this. People are like, "muh plan 9 tiny kernel", but they forget that Plan 9 has shit-tier hardware support, and if Plan 9 ever did get Linux's hardware support, it may or may not be 4.8 million lines, but it most certainly would be astronomically larger than it currently is, and would be far bigger than any suckless shill would allow.

>>969147

>BSDs are far more community driven than Linux, which is basically another arm of the military industrial complex at this point.

HAHAHAHAHA

pic related. BSDfags actually treat their commercial bullshit as a SELLING POINT

>>969233

>The AMD Radeon R9 290X saw a 50% performance increase when they removed part of the Radeon driver and used Mantle to interact directly with the GPU.

And it's still way slower than what NVIDIA puts out. If you were trying to make a point here, you failed

For real though, if you guys really want better and more /minimal/ software, you should look to microkernels.


 No.969330

>>969082

>inefficient login method but doesn't matter because only 1500 users

>pointless "true"==="true", perhaps to get around some retard nigger linting tool or something similar, or maybe there's some metashit happening here that I don't know about

>setting cookie "loggedin" to "yes" lets you into the site? or is that $.cookie also setting up a session or something?

>still sending actual strings to the database in 1990+28

>typing out "account" to name a variable that's only used on the 2 lines below

>has to type an extra = because the PL is shit

>if (x===true) else if (x===false)

what am I supposed to be concluding from this shitcode? it's completely typical and has been for 30 years. the audience of codinghorror would only notice the first 2 points and some of the other minor syntax issues

>Don't use urxvt, use st.

I've been using mrxvt recently, is that bloated? Going from several other dog shit terminal emulators, the last I used was xfce4-terminal, which has unberable input lag and a bug where random strings of text become invisible while browsing man pages, and now I use mrxvt because it's decently fast (i.e actually opens within the first year of me hitting the hotkey to open it). However I don't think it supports unicode which has become impractical for me regardless of how shit unicode is

>>969096

so give me a minimal memory-safe PL, like LISP (but not actually LISP lol)


 No.969331

>>969313

>St cannot be daemonized, making it considerably heavier than urxvt when used in a tiling window manager setup.

Not the op, but doesn't st being way smaller than urxvt make this void 99% of the time? In any case, there are few situations where you're worried about the mem usage of the terminal, as opposed to, say, the browser. startup time does matter tho


 No.969332

>>969286

only tards not knowing the cost of lack of memory-safety will promote writing the entire kernelspace+userspace in an unsafe language


 No.969338

>>969330

GNU Guile?


 No.969340

>>969330

Pascal. Not even joking.


 No.969348

>>969313

yeah except when the daemon crashes and you get fucked in the ass, st all the way my nigger


 No.969352

>>969313

>>And it's still way slower than what NVIDIA puts out. If you were trying to make a point here, you failed

>Can only think in terms of consumer performance metrics such as synthetic benchmarks and game framerates

>Sees a brand name and has to display brand name loyalty instead of understanding the actual point being made

Your reading comprehension has failed you.

If AMD can get increased performance by partially getting the driver out of the way and directly programming the hardware, then NVIDIA can as well. Why? Simply put, the current driver model is a cost-heavy software abstraction that limits the total performance you can get out of a piece of hardware. All GPU manufacturers will see a performance increase from directly programming the hardware.


 No.969356

File: 48675a7b42d5fb0⋯.gif (2.12 MB, 346x244, 173:122, 6756734gklhgfdk453.gif)

>all these nomath pajeets pushing bound checking


 No.969361

>>969356

bounds checking is for pajeet XDDD

>>>/g/


 No.969365

>>969361

Real white programmers launch another process in which they iterate over the array in a goto loop until it segfaults.


 No.969368

>>969365

Maybe spanish programmers. Northern europeans unroll all their loops, no matter how many iterations, guaranteeing speed and security.


 No.969370

>>969365

>he knows about goto

>he thinks he's white


 No.969372

>>969082

That's an interesting point, but the freedom to study the source code refers to the source code as it was used by the author. For example, if the author has his code split up neatly into various files, but then uses a tool to merge them all into one file with tens of thousands of lines of code, that would not qualify as source code. On the other hand, if the author is a turboauitst who can actually keep track of one file that several tens of thousands of lines long, then there is nothing to argue.

Bloat is not an issue of political or legal freedom, it's an issue of practical freedom. No normal person is going to audit the source code of an incomprehensive mess, let alone make changes to it, even if they are allowed to. At that point you might as well re-write it from scratch.


 No.969380

>>969129

Of all the pro-suckless shilling in this thread, this is probably the only one that provides a solid supporting argument.


 No.969384

>>969372

And if the author enjoys writing binaries by hand in a hex editor, then that counts as free software as well. Come to think of it, some of the microsoft tools are edited in hex editors...

>Bloat is not an issue of political or legal freedom, it's an issue of practical freedom

If you're not already an anarchist, then why even live? The only issues that matter are practical issues. It just so happens that governments are very good at making political and legal issues into practical issues (and getting better at it).


 No.969387

>>969176

>broken wtfpl license

kys licencecuck


 No.969390

>>969286

>the price of a branch on most µarchs

Effectively zero if well-predicted? Like, one that goes one way all the time?


 No.969391

>>969390

Branches are almost free only on very modern CISC uarchs. Also, speculative execution brought us some lovely problems, these last few months.


 No.969392

>>969391

Buckle up then, since it's not going anywhere.


 No.969393

>>969370

>he repeats the forced academy goto meme

Just don't overuse it, like longjmp.


 No.969395

>>969306

>Lisp machines can check array bounds in parallel.

And superscalar machines can do useful work in parallel. Why waste silicon and power on useless checks if you can invest it in doing actual calculations instead?


 No.969400

>>969384

> The only issues that matter are practical issues.

That's not how it works. I can hand you the cleanest code in the world, if I don't give you permission to modify and redistribute it, I could sue the shit out of you for distributing a modified version. This is why practical freedom is built upon legal freedom.


 No.969403

>>969103

>C/UNIX idiots have a hard time writing curl/wget (pure C) without a thousand vulnerabilities

Just think: If a rather "small" program like curl has a ton of vulnerabilities (https://curl.haxx.se/docs/security.html), how many other (networked) C applications have egregious vulnerabilities? Next time you pedos are shitting yourselves about Spectre/Meltdown/the IME just remember that most of the C code running on your machine is insecure. (Another point I have to make: why do you losers have a pathological desire to live in paranoia? Shoved into lockers one too many times?)


 No.969404

File: 1997e798baf8f27⋯.pdf (234.58 KB, 18619746.PDF)

>>969361

yes you are a pajeet


 No.969409

>>969395

They're useful checks since without them you would get RCE vulns. I agree that there are use cases for unsafe assembly code, but anything in the chain of how you access your online bank is not one of them.

>>969400

Literally not an argument. Practical freedom existed before "legal freedom" or "legal restrictions". Also I'm pretty sure in practice some small guy like you would be unable to enforce anything about your code other than maybe a harrasment lawsuit and earn yourself $5.

>>969404

C isn't a good language in the first place. I don't want C with bounds checking. Ironically everyone here is too scared to open this PDF file literally because of C (which in fact is more prone to RCE vulns than assembly language). Even if C was memory-safe it would still be prone to causing security issues. A much better starting point is something like ML or even LISP.


 No.969412

File: 50251216b4af349⋯.gif (62.26 KB, 500x372, 125:93, 50251216b4af34995c957e582b….gif)

>OP makes a thread about minimal software

>shitters show up to screech about muh C and how their favourite languages are so great for big programs

Like clockwork. At least >>969285 made a quality post.


 No.969420

>>969409

>like ML

Yes

>or even LISP

No


 No.969421

>>969400

> I could sue the shit out of you for distributing a modified version

> It just so happens that governments are very good at making political and legal issues into practical issues

What if I host it on behind tor? What if I'm some small fry torrent seeder not worth pursuing? What if I obfuscate the bins so you can't prove I copied from you? etc. Even though these aren't legal protections from copyright, they are practical protections, that various anons use every day. Doing something just because the government tells you to is the definition of cuckoldery.


 No.969430

Code artisanship and language wars are retarded. Waste of time when so much software is totally outdated and uninteresting.

Luckily academia is on top of things and is getting people to reconsider actual design instead of fagging around writing fib sequences in new innovative ways.


 No.969432

>>969421

Yeah respecting free software licenses is retarded. You should just ignore the GPL and do whatever the fuck you want with it.


 No.969433

>>969430

Academia is perennially masturbating over the new in vogue functional language (that essentially clones the functionality of an older functional language, while adding maybe ten unique features). At least they still use FORTRAN in places.


 No.969435

>>969313

>Pretty much this. People are like, "muh plan 9 tiny kernel", but they forget that Plan 9 has shit-tier hardware support, and if Plan 9 ever did get Linux's hardware support, it may or may not be 4.8 million lines, but it most certainly would be astronomically larger than it currently is, and would be far bigger than any suckless shill would allow.

This is why you have different versions of the kernel on a per-uarch basis. This isn't as complex as you would make it out to be, either. You'd just have a modular microkernel that gets compiled into certain configurations.


 No.969441

File: 4287f26971f5e33⋯.jpg (60.11 KB, 982x552, 491:276, unhackable-kernel-sel4.jpg)

>>969435

>You'd just have a microkernel

well at least we can agree on that one

https://sel4.systems/

https://genode.org/


 No.969443

>>969441

Daily reminder that despite all the math shit that went inte seL4 it's still vulnerable to spectre and meltdown without any mitigation.


 No.969457

>>969443

>they had a modelling problem

>CHECKMATE MATHFAGS XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

>>969412

>someone doesn't suck the C

<why do I come to this board

<pajeet

<XDDDDD

like clockwork


 No.969458

>>969432

What faggot has seen that their car uses GPLed software, and called them up to ask for the source? It's just a mildly annoying burden on them, and confers no benefit to you. Stallman's been jacking off to the distinction between free and open source software for 20 years, but I still have yet to hear of a situation where this has conferred any benefit to end users. The practical difference is that it fucks over large corporations, which I am all for, but why should I bother respecting this distinction?


 No.969459

>>969457

>>they had a modelling problem

Yes indeed checkmate math fags.

>hurr durr its proven correct goy!


 No.969467

>>969459

fuck off nigger i'm not defending sel4 i'm defending formal proofs


 No.969468

>>969458

nobody looks at the code in their cars because it's hopeless. use feet or ride bike instead. why would you entrust your life to KLOCS-MLOCS of code made by an industry that never once had any oversight (aside from uConnect, which indeed proved ECU code to be a disaster). expect code worse than what you get in routers, smart TVs, and other "embedded" software


 No.969491

>>969467

Well then bud instead of claiming things are "proven correct" how about you say "proven to match a specification that is likely wrong".


 No.969534

>>969458

Your confusion is that you believe that users need to be computer experts with good programming skills. This is a false assumption, it is wrong to conflate freedom with technical aptitude. Users (who have freedom) who need technical help need to go ask a skilled helper to help them. The skilled helper will request the source code from the user and the user will request the source code from the distributor to give a copy to the skilled helper.

Open source exists to promote an open software development method. In this philosophy, freedom is not the purpose, the purpose is about producing the highest quality software through the open source method. The free software philosophy and open source philosophy is not the same ideal, do not conflate the two as you can have one without the other. It is also possible to have both philosophies working on the same project.


 No.969539

>>969458

See how the Linksys router firmware was forced to be shared. Or see how "open source" allows faggots like Sony to just take FreeBSD and make their locked down computer called a console or Apple to avoid working for their turd of an OS.


 No.969630

>>969491

fuck off nigger i'm not defending sel4 i'm defending formal proofs


 No.969661

>>969534

Open source software is free software, except it grants one additional freedom, to disribute the software without providing source. As an end user, you have no reason to prefer free software over open source software. As a company who plans on selling the result, you will prefer OSS. The goal of free software, I say, is to screw over these latter companies, a job it does admirally. The goal is not to get companies to hand out their software for free, as the GPL requires them*, because no company would be stupid enough to fall for that. They will either use the free software in some way that doesn't make the rest of their code "derivative", or make/license a proprietary version of the software, even at great expense.

*fite me stallfags

>>969539

>router firmware was forced to be shared

Oh yay, you have the source for the firmware of a shitty router. No doubt you've already patched it a ton, and shared it with all your friends.

>sony made an operating system for slightly cheaper

They weren't gonna release the source anyways, they would've picked some proprietary os instead if bsd wasn't around. That would've made the resulting product shittier and more expensive, so score 1 for open sores?


 No.969839

>>969661

You believe that the purpose of free software is to screw over companies; this is wrong. The purpose of free software is to promote freedom for the users. The GPL works by preventing people to redistribute the GPL software as proprietary software, the only people this disturbs are the people (companies or individuals) who distribute proprietary software. You are confused to think that people cannot earn a profit selling free software; earning a profit does not conflict with the ideals of free software. The idea that conflicts with free software is the distribution of proprietary software in any form whether a profit is made or a loss is made.


 No.969981

>pretending we can have non-bloated systems with the traditional unix / x paradigm

The lispfag is right, also we could have had Smalltalk too. Running those on the bare metal would be easy these days and the systems are so much smaller, more flexible, and easily understood / modified.


 No.970012

>>969981

It's all talk and no action. You guys have it good these days because you have access to affordable and super fast computing machines. Yet, people who complain about this spend none of their own time implementing such systems that will not take the amount of time it would take to write TempleOS. I suppose I could note the suckless team who do indeed walk the walk instead of only talking about should be done.


 No.970385

>>969839

>You are confused to think that people cannot earn a profit selling free software; earning a profit does not conflict with the ideals of free software

There is no "selling free software". You beg for donations, and some people will give them to you. In the old days, when software was distributed on tapes, you could sell the media. Nowadays, you can't hope to sell the download for more than a couple pennies, and even then github would undercut you.

>the only people this disturbs are the people (companies or individuals) who distribute proprietary software

Exactly. gpl screws over proprietary software distributors, mit doesn't. that is the one and only difference.


 No.970387

>>970385

i thought summer ended already


 No.970390

>>970387

>all these (you)s

I'm in heaven


 No.970440

>>970012

What's needed is a bare metal platform which doesn't constantly change. The rPi would be a good option, with a stable hardware configuration.

Intel's right out, there are a million peripherals to support and they revise everything all the time.


 No.970962

>>969661

>>969539

>"open source" allows faggots like Sony to just take FreeBSD and make their locked down computer called a console or Apple to avoid working for their turd of an OS

>Open source software is free software, except it grants one additional freedom

what terrible bait.


 No.971017

>>970385

Your business model of selling software is self-limiting if you believe the only way to sell software is to copy the common model of selling proprietary software. The way to make a profit selling free software is to sell something valuable that cannot be readily duplicated.


 No.976516

>>969120 (((Telemetry '"man'")))


 No.976525

>>971017

>The way to make a profit selling free software is to sell something valuable that cannot be readily duplicate

Like putting it behind a cloud only API. This is the present.


 No.977653

File: 4ee643eb769e529⋯.jpg (64.8 KB, 450x358, 225:179, Amazing_Nigger_Engineering.jpg)

>>969129

baste and redpilled


 No.977659

>>969176

Calibre's GUI is trash-tier, but their

ebook-convert
tool is indispensable. Only pandoc comes close.

https://manual.calibre-ebook.com/generated/en/ebook-convert.html

>hydrus

I actually talked with the developer of hydrus a while ago because I have my own personal filetagging software. We had an interesting technical conversation and swapped some ideas. Hydrus isn't software that I use, but I like the developer. He seems like a good lad.


 No.977666

>>969338

GNU Guile is fun.


 No.980352

>>977666

I'll second Guile. I like to mix it with C++.


 No.980376

Remimder that drivers bloating the kernel wouldn't be an issue with a microkernel. Tannenbaum was right about everything.


 No.980386

>>980376

Drivers bloating the kernel wouldn't be an issue with a better hardware.


 No.980405

>>980386

Daily reminder that microkernels don't remove bloat that just move an equal or greater amount of bloat to another part of the system.


 No.980414

>thread caterwauling about bloat #107928374

>100+ replies

Shows how out-of-touch the autists here are.


 No.980422

>>969441

>>969435

What's special about the plan9 kernel anyway? I thought 9P, mounts and userspace made it special, not the kernel itself.

It might be hard but surely we could use the genode framework to present linux drivers as 9P filesystems, enabling plan 9 to stay small while compartmentalizing the mandatory driver bloat that exists today.


 No.988959

>>980422

From what i've read on it, you can compile the kernel down to suite very special needs. For instance, you can have one plan 9 instance be for general file storage and another for archiving. The kernel will only get to a few megabytes if you do it like that.


 No.988968

>>988959

That's the same like every other kernel on Earth.


 No.989030

suckless is just a bunch of autistic fucks who have no idea of what they are talking about.


 No.989068

>>989030

t. Electron using faggot


 No.989326

>>969176

>and he's part of that weird niche of Windows users who also write mostly free software.

That "niche" is bigger than the entire UNIX userbase.


 No.989890

>>969096

>minimalism is bad

>C is unsafe

Homosexual detected. Opinion discarded.


 No.989891

>>969129

Tell me some good suckless applications.


 No.989892

Threadly reminder

sudo apt-get remove librust*


 No.989896

>>989892

>apt-get remove

get out of that rock


 No.989897

>>989896

I just wrote it for rpms. You can use yum, dnf, emerge remove whatever you want.


 No.989980

>>989897

>apt-get

>rpm

Are you okay?

>>989326

Nice wrong opinion.


 No.990007

>>989980

>opinion

>a statement of fact (whether true or not) is now an opinion

Kill yourself


 No.990096

>>989980

>>apt-get

>>rpm

>Are you okay?

shit, deb

I suck (not cock)




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / britpol / fast / general / komica / marx / monarchy / tacos / tribute ]