The industry cannot code safely. There are many reports, studies, and corporate disclosures highlighting that memory related bugs are the primary source of critical security issues in C and C++ code. That is why even NIH companies like Google and Microsoft are adopting Rust in their core products.

That you want to publicly ignore all that evidence to paint it as an individual skill issue does not come across as competent or intelligent. Few of us are going to assume your code is free of these kinds of bugs.

The fact that your have to say it so dismissively makes me think that you know it too.

You don’t have to spin it as a business to say that evolving it to reflect reality makes sense. It is not exactly radical to say everybody should get the same level of service that the majority of us get today.

Fewer than 25% of Canadians have door to door delivery. Almost everybody gets delivery to a private mailbox very close to their house. Door to door delivery is down to under 4 million addresses. This is a 10 year plan to finish that transition. Not exactly aggressive.

You can still get delivery to your door if you are disabled.

Regardless of if it is a a business or an essential service, we should be honest about it. We used to send 5 times as much mail when we were fewer people. Why do we have to ignore that?

If 75% of us (like me) are totally fine with super mailboxes, I think the rest can handle it. I know that I could get away with delivery 3 times a week as well. In 2030, how time sensitive is something coming through regular mail. Let’s be real. I could wait one more day.

There is not hypervisor. So, no hypervisor to update.

I would have gone with GrubCraft but awesome otherwise.

Unless they share it against the license terms via copilot of course.

Otherwise, I agree with you.

Permissive licenses are trending in popularity vs copyleft. As a “newer” ecosystem, the Rest-dev culture skews towards permissive.

Why are permissive licenses popular?

Most Open Source software is written by companies.

“Permissive” licenses offer more flexibility and compatibility while minimizing future legal complications. You can replace the word flexibility with the word freedom if you wish. By compatibility, I mean it can be combined with code using other licenses. So no “we cannot combine ZFS and Linux” type problems.

MIT offers the absolute minimum of legal footprint and maximum compatibility.

The above are attributes companies value.

On the other side of the “freedom” front, licenses like MIT guarantee all of the “4 freedoms” that groups like the Free Software Foundation talks about with adding an restrictions on the freedoms of others.

So, why doesn’t everybody use MIT? The patent guarantees in Apache 2.0 are useful if you are ok with the added complexity (still permissive but more legalese).

I do not want Flatpak to replace distro packages.

I use both pacman and apk and they are both far better package managers than Flatpak is. Apk 3 is awesome. And I do not want sandboxes for native packages.

The role of Flatpak is as a distribution method for app developers to target Linux as a platform with a single build. It is a place to get things that may not be in my distro repos. It can be a method for commercial distribution. It is the cure for the “fragmentation” problem that makes it difficult to develop software for Linux.

I hate snaps but snaps could actually be used to replace packages. You could distribute GCC as a snap. In its current form, Flatpak is only targeting GUI applications

I really hope we see an acceleration in GIMP releases now that 3.0 is out. Seeing “new contributor” here is a good thing.

At the very least, these improvements get into the hands of GIMP users sooner instead of languishing in a dev release for years.

Why do you think Panama and Canada came up on the same day. Yea, Northwest Passage.

Thank you for clearly outlining the depth of your analysis.

You are completely correct. The good news is that the “official” .NET is Open Source now and far better than the “Mono Project” ever was.

The problem with this question is that most NVIDIA owners will have experience based on a very different stack than you will experience.

NVIDIA and Wayland have had very big problems that have only recently been resolved. If you are using a very up-to-date distribution then you will have a great experience ( see other comments here about EndeavourOS for example ). If you have a distribution that does not have the latest, there will probably be issues.

AMD has been the clear go-to choice for Linux for years. It is still a safe bet. The safest bet based on history. That said, AMD does have issues as well and with the NVIDIA issues now resolved it is not as clear cut. NVIDIA may actually be the better choice.

But the AUR is the best part of Arch. I agree with you but why not use Arch or EndeavourOS and be free to use the AUR without fear.