moomoomoo309

I didn't attribute it to malice, I said that the OP's post is correct that Christoph's stance is hardline and a complete showstopper for the R4L project. His reasoning is likely one of pragmatism, by the sounds of it, and it's reasonable, but I simply don't agree given Rust's history as a language used in a codebase historically using another language (Firefox). The success stories there are already written, the language has developed with that in mind already. He's not being ridiculous or malicious, he's just being conservative and playing it safe, but that still gets in the way.

Yeah...until Christoph replied and confirmed what Hector was saying was true and not FUD. He didn't mince words, he said he did not want Rust in Linux whatsoever, only for new codebases, not existing ones like Linux.

Well, they'd need to add a shebang, they'd need to set the executable bit, and if it works, it works, but if it doesn't open a terminal (some DEs do, some don't), you don't even know if it worked, it's not really that straightforward.

In the same way that not everyone cares about how their car works and wants to tinker with it and modify it, but they use it every day - there are people who feel that way about computers, and Linux being viable for those people is a good thing, and we don't need to "dumb down" the whole ecosystem to do it, since Linux is all about options.

What you just said is like "I forgot that changing your tire/oil in 2024 is akin to surgery". Yeah, it's not that hard, but do you know how to do it? How many Linux users who drive a car do you know that could do it themselves correctly? Everything's easy when you already have a breadth of knowledge on it.

I think you may have misread the message you replied to. The message you replied to was implying the Russians wouldn't know how to deal with the kernel because they can't shoot missiles at it. That's the opposite of what your reply implies.

I'm quite skinny and I also think I should exercise more and eat less junk food. There isn't any fat phobia there, it targeted me just as well.

Lots of states made flavored reusable vapes illegal, but flavored disposables are legal. Yes, it is as stupid as it sounds.

Oh, of course, it's just their tools have gotten much better. You could have said what you just did about the internet too, and it'd also be correct, but it definitely had a big impact.

Fair, I should have said "for a bad actor", of which I am not. I haven't experience with the tools they'd use.

No, they're saying it would be really easy now to create a fake image that would have in the past had that level of impact.

That's not too weird, until IntelliJ added its lite editor, it was the same way for many years.

That's not at all the argument I'm making. My argument is that English's inconsistency is, at this point, the reason it is successful. By integrating everything into it, it has become a good enough medium of communication for almost everything. That would not have been possible unless the language eschewed consistency.

Really, a better argument against changing the spelling is the classic "standards" xkcd, where now you're just making another dialect of English where they spell words differently again, and now it needs to be adopted, fracturing the language further. Honestly, though? It doesn't matter. Fix the spelling if you want. English can take the fracturing. The changes might take, they might not, but I doubt it'll make the language more consistent overall, for every fix you put in, you'll have someone who disagrees and doesn't put it in, making your dialect more consistent, but the language overall less so, but it doesn't matter. English will continue to be inconsistent, and that's okay, that's why it works.