Thank you for the answer!

I have not previously heard Meson described as a reinvention of Cmake or a CMake clone, nor that it was meant to be. I would think that Meson being as opinionated as it is, including for example the fact that it does not and will not support user-defined functions, precludes it from being a CMake clone. It seems instead to be a build-system with a rather different philosophy and feature-set compared to Cmake. But if that philosophy or that feature-set does not match your needs, then there's obviously no reason to pick it over CMake

Out of curiosity, why do you consider CMake to be the better choice compared to Meson?

Personally I landed on Meson a few years ago, from what I remember chiefly due to simply not liking CMake's DSL and finding Meson easier to work with, despite needing to target a pretty old version for the sake of compatibility. Though Meson is definitely not perfect either; it's highly opinionated, and for example only recently got support for custom build targets putting stuff in sub-directories (as I discovered while writing this comment), so I'll personally be stuck with my workarounds for a good while longer

If you have a couple of hours, and can stomach the AI art, then this video covers a lot of the niceties of C++:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fGB-hjc2Gc

For anyone curious about the number of bugs introduced in each kernel release, LWN.net has a plot of Bugs fixed and introduced in each kernel release.

However, it has the obvious limitation that recent releases will appear to have fewer commits introducing bugs, simply because kernel developers haven't had as much time to find and fix the bugs introduced in those releases. So it'll be a while before we can actually see the consequences (positive or negative) of more widespread LLM usage by kernel developers

Always take these stories with a grain of salt.

For example, while the article claims that "we saw Denmark's government move from Windows to Linux back in 2025", the reality is that it was just one department and they didn't even move to Linux. They merely started a pilot project to see if they could move from Office 365 to Collabora: https://www.digmin.dk/digitalisering/nyheder/nyhedsarkiv/2025/jun/digitaliseringsministeriet-saetter-gang-i-pilotprojekt-om-digital-suveraenitet

Betteridge's law of headlines:

Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no

It can't be quite that bad; they've been shipping the rust version of Bun with Claude Code since v2.1.181 (released June 18th), and I haven't seen an outcry over all related functionality breaking

I can't believe that Rust developers would call POSIX functions to interact with the operating system! The audacity!

It’s probably easier to strip down GRUB, than it is to resurrect and add missing features to a project that has been dead for 10+ years

At this point the people complaining about Rust at every opportunity have become more annoying than the "rewrite it in Rust" people ever were

The article is about an internal kernel API: They can easily rename those, since they are not exposed to user-space.

But you seem to be talking about the kill command and/or the kill function, that are part of the POSIX and C standards, respectively. Renaming either would break a shit-ton of code, unless you merely aliased them. And while I agree that kill is a poor name, adding non-standard aliases doesn't really offer much benefit

I set the timestamps of my music to its original release date, so that I can sort it chronologically... OK, I don't actually do that, but now I'm tempted