sorted by: new top controversial old
[-] duncesplayed@lemmy.one 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

LocalSend. It’s exactly like Apple Airdrop

This may be super-nitpicky (and I lose LocalSend and use it a lot), but there is one difference between LocalSend and Airdrop. LocalSend requires network connectivity (and requires the devices to be on the same network), whereas Airdrop can work without any network connection (using Bluetooth).

[-] duncesplayed@lemmy.one 10 points 3 months ago

I recently discovered that he believes it's theft if you watch one of his videos with an adblocker. Just out of spite, sometimes I put one of his videos on in the background (muted) with an adblocker.

[-] duncesplayed@lemmy.one 3 points 4 months ago

Something something broken arms

Edit: Wow, thank you for the gold, kind stranger!

[-] duncesplayed@lemmy.one 16 points 4 months ago

To be honest I'm more concerned by language-humor. Like not even saying what kind of humour, just any type of humour at all. Jokes are for adults only!

[-] duncesplayed@lemmy.one 15 points 4 months ago

Yeah during the reddit exodus, people were recommending to overwrite your comment with garbage before deleting it. This (probably) forces them to restore your comment from backup. But realistically they were always going to harvest the comments stored in backup anyway, so I don't think it caused them any more work.

If anything, this probably just makes reddit's/SO's partnership more valuable because your comments are now exclusive to reddit's/SO's backend, and other companies can't scrape it.

[-] duncesplayed@lemmy.one 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Why the quotes?

If you ever see quotation marks in a headline, it simply means they're attributing the word/phrase to a particular source. In this case, they're saying that the word "security" was used verbatim in the intranet document. Scare quotes are never used in journalism, so they're not implying anything by putting the word in quotation marks. They're simply saying that they're not paraphrasing.

[-] duncesplayed@lemmy.one 4 points 4 months ago

The article mentions they'll continue making the eZ80. If you're in the middle of making a PCB around the Z80, you'll just have to change the pins, I guess.

[-] duncesplayed@lemmy.one 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Heads up for anyone (like me) who isn't already familiar with SimpleX, unfortunately its name makes it impossible to search for unless you already know what it is. I was only able to track it down after a couple frustrating minutes after I added "linux" into the search on a lark.

Anyway it's a chat protocol

[-] duncesplayed@lemmy.one 5 points 5 months ago

If you pump out enough research papers, maybe Microsoft won't move you over to the Office team.

[-] duncesplayed@lemmy.one 1 points 5 months ago

Reminds me a little of the old Jonathan Shapiro research OSes (Coyotos, EROS, CapROS), though toned down a little bit. The EROS family was about eliminating the filesystem entirely at the OS level since you can simulate files with capabilities anyway. Serenum seems to be toning that down a little and effectively having file- or directory-level capabilities, which I think is sensible if you're going to have a capability-based OS, since they end up being a bit more user-visible as an OS.

He's got the same problem every research OS has: zero software. He's probably smart to ditch the idea of hardware entirely and just fix on one hardware platform.

I wish him luck selling his computer systems, but I doubt he's going to do very well. What would a customer do with one of these? Edit files? And then...edit them again? I guess you can show off how inconvenient it is to edit things due to its security.

I just mean it's a bit optimistic to try and fund this by selling it. I understand he doesn't have a research grant, but it's clearly just a research OS.

[-] duncesplayed@lemmy.one 56 points 5 months ago

You just don't appreciate how prestigious it is to get a degree from Example U.

[-] duncesplayed@lemmy.one 4 points 6 months ago

I feel like the answer is recycling deposits somehow. I've seen attempts at them here and there, but I guess we haven't quite figured out the details yet. I guess electronics are a bit trickier to set up a deposit system for than pop cans. Even the places that do have electronics deposits, often you have to drive to a special recycling centre out past the airport that's open 3 hours in the middle of the day, only for them to tell you that everything's glued together so they can't really separate out the parts they need and most of it will probably end up just going to the landfill anyway.

But theoretically, if we could get a serious deposit system that allowed for recycling to be profitable and gave manufacturers and incentive for making their stuff easier to take apart and recycling (and hence easier to repair), that would be pretty sweet.

4
submitted 1 year ago by duncesplayed@lemmy.one to c/linux@lemmy.ml

Thomas Glexiner of Linutronix (now owned by Intel) has posted 58 patches for review into the Linux kernel, but they're only the beginning! Most of the patches are just first steps at doing more major renovations into what he calls "decrapification". He says:

While working on a sane topology evaluation mechanism, which addresses the short-comings of the existing tragedy held together with duct-tape and hay-wire, I ran into the issue that quite some of this tragedy is deeply embedded in the APIC code and uses an impenetrable maze of callbacks which might or might not be correct at the point where the CPUs are registered via MPPARSE or ACPI/MADT.

So I stopped working on the topology stuff and decided to do an overhaul of the APIC code first. Cleaning up old gunk which dates back to the early SMP days, making the CPU registration halfways understandable and then going through all APIC callbacks to figure out what they actually do and whether they are required at all. There is also quite some overhead through the indirect calls and some of them are actually even pointlessly indirected twice. At some point Peter yelled static_call() at me and that's what I finally ended up implementing.

He also, at one point, (half-heartedly) argues for the removal of 32-bit x86 code entirely, arguing that it would simplify APIC code and reduce the chance for introducing bugs in the future:

Talking about those museums pieces and the related historic maze, I really have to bring up the question again, whether we should finally kill support for the museum CPUs and move on.

Ideally we remove 32bit support alltogether. I know the answer... :(

But what I really want to do is to make x86 SMP only. The amount of #ifdeffery and hacks to keep the UP support alive is amazing. And we do this just for the sake that it runs on some 25+ years old hardware for absolutely zero value. It'd be not the first architecture to go SMP=y.

Yes, we "support" Alpha, PARISC, Itanic and other oddballs too, but that's completely different. They are not getting new hardware every other day and the main impact on the kernel as a whole is mostly static. They are sometimes in the way of generalizing things in the core code. Other than that their architecture code is self contained and they can tinker on it as they see fit or let it slowly bitrot like Itanic.

But x86 is (still) alive and being extended and expanded. That means that any refactoring of common infrastructure has to take the broken hardware museum into account. It's doable, but it's not pretty and of really questionable value. I wouldn't mind if there were a bunch of museum attendants actively working on it with taste, but that's obviously wishful thinking. We are even short of people with taste who work on contemporary hardware support...

While I cursed myself at some point during this work for having merged i386/x86_64 back then, I still think that it was the correct decision at that point in time and saved us a lot of trouble. It admittedly added some trouble which we would not have now, but it avoided the insanity of having to maintain two trees with different bugs and "fixes" for the very same problems. TBH quite some of the horrors which I just removed came out of the x86/64 side. The oddballs of i386 early SMP support are a horror on their own of course.

As we made that decision more than 15 years [!] ago, it's about time to make new decisions.

Linus responded to one of the patches, saying "I'm cheering your patch series", but has obviously diplomatically not acknowledged the plea to remove 32-bit support.

1
submitted 1 year ago by duncesplayed@lemmy.one to c/linux@lemmy.ml
view more: next ›

duncesplayed

joined 1 year ago