A symlink works more closely to the first way you described it. The software opening a symlink has to actually follow it. It's possible for a software to not follow the symlink (either intentionally or not).
So your sync software has to actually be able to follow symlinks. I'm not familiar with how gdrive and similar solutions work, but I know this is possible with something like rsync
I didn't look much into void, but when I did, gentoo's repository is much larger and there are many packages that I'd call obscure that happen to be in the main repos.
The situations I've had to reach to guru are rare. I bet that gentoo has more obscure stuff in its main repo, though I don't have the numbers to prove it.
Any examples other than ocaml? From my understanding, ocaml's type strength may only be found in a couple other languages. Haskell, scala, and maybe Rust. Any others?
GURU is source only
Is void different? Does it have a user repository that provides binaries directly?
My familiarity is with AUR, which does not provide the binaries directly. I suppose you can write a PKGBUILD that only installs a binary, but you could do the same with ebuild.
On binary support, I imagine you're right. Binary support in gentoo is new. I imagine it will only get better.
Comparing cost to AWS Aurora is unfair. Give us the self host price, and compare to that.
Also, they should have tried Scylla or Cassandra. It's very scalable and handles a lot of writes.
You already said it, but even if you want mostly binaries, gentoo is becoming a distribution that can do that. So I don't think this is something that sets them apart.
Plus, gentoo handles compilations so well, it is almost as simple as binary package managers.
Why b-1 instead of just b votes? "because the vote could've otherwise went to B" well it could've also went to T, but I don't see you accounting for it as t-1.
This math has a double standard.
The author would likely really enjoy gentoo. Imo it has all those benefits and a little more, plus its more popular.
I won't remember everything, but one very important things comes to mind:
in Typescript, it is very difficult to assert on a type (let me know if you're not familiar with what I mean by this and I can explain further). In OCaml, this is trivial using pattern matching.
Why would you need that? The idea of a type system is it doesn't let you apply a function on a structure without the structure being of the right type. But the lack of type assertion in TS makes people follow hacky workarounds, which defeat the purpose of type system.
There are a couple of other things, like immutable types by default, automatic tail call optimization, functors enabling higher kinded types, etc.
Also in ocaml, you don't have to annotate any types on any variable or parameter, and you'll still get full type protection.
Move account to another unethical, profit driven bank or?
Y'all still believe in the illusion of choice / opt-out in capitalism.
Its increasingly difficult to block 100% of possible ads, but good luck
I have a feeling this is a joke. Either way I'm not following sorry ๐ญ