Most packages managers can run arbitrary code on install or upgrade or removal. You are trusting the code you choose to run on your system no matter where you get it from. Remember the old bug in ubuntu that ran a rm -rf / usr/.. instead of rm -rf /usr/... and wiped a load of peoples systems?

Flatpacks, Apparmor and snaps are better in this reguard as they are somewhat more sandboxed and can restrict what the applications have access to.

But really if the install script is from the authors of the package then it should be just as trustworthy as the package. But generally I download and read the install scripts as there is no standard they are following and I don’t want them touching random system files in ways I am not aware of or cannot undo easily. Sometimes they are just detecting the OS and picking relevant packages to install - maybe with some thrid party repos. Other times they mess with your home partition and do a bunch of stuff including messing with bashrc files to add things to your PATH which I don’t like. I would never run a install script that is not from the author of the application though and be very wary of install scripts from a smaller package with fewer users.

Also if you are looking for a replacement for find that is not a full tui then take a look at fd which works more like what the author expected from the find commad - fd <pattern>.

Once had a missing semi colon at the end of a c header file. The compiler kept complaining about the c file and never mentioned the header. Not all errors lead you to the right place.

Though most of the time people just don’t read them. The number of problems I have solve for people by just copy pasting the error they gave me back to them…

Though the constant resistance from people like Hellwig were part of the reason for that burn out, though not the only reason.

but I do think a sizeable portion of existing C++ devs who don’t want to use rust exist

That may be true. But out of that pool of people it seemed that very very few wanted to work on the fish project. So it was not helping them much at all. The is a vastly larger pool of people that don’t want to learn C++ and some of those may be willing to pick up rust. It would not take much for that to out number the number of C++ devs that want to work on fish that also don’t want to learn rust. Given there are not a huge amount of contributors that regularly contribute to it according to their announcement blog post.

Protip: Don’t write 600 lines of code without ever testing it at all. And by testing I mean anything, manual testing included or even just compiling it or running a linter over it. Do things incrementally and verify things at each step to make sure you are not drifting off course by some faulty assumption you made near the start.

Syntax is in a large part what people are used to. Which is trivial to change by just using the thing for a while and getting used to the different syntax. But syntax is only part of a language. The tooling, documentation, error messages, and general feed back are all IMO much nicer in rust than C++. It is also easier to people new to programming or used to other languages to get into than C++ is, even including the syntax into that.

C++ was one of the first languages I learnt - and now after not using it for years I cannot stand its syntax.

From their blog post:

Finally, subjectively, C++ isn’t drawing in the crowds. We have never had a lot of C++ contributors. Over the 11 years fish used C++, only 17 people have at least 10 commits to the C++ code. We also don’t know a lot of people who would love to work on a C++ codebase in their free time.

Hard to tank when you don’t have many to begin with. Rust is far nicer to new users to contribute to then old C++ code. Which can be seen in their github - in the last 24 months 16 people have contributed more then 10 commits. Which is during the conversion period - I dont expect that many of those to be C++ contributions. So rust does not seem to have hurt their contributions at all and in fact looks to have helped.

becoming production capable and ready for prime-time use from Linux gamers to workstation customers and data centers.

I would bet on it being the boom in AI increasing demands for Nvidia GPUs in data centers which largely run Linux wanting better support. Bet they don’t care at all about workstation users and Wayland support is a by product of making it work better with the kernel overall.

SIGINT is sent when you press Ctrl+C. SIGTERM is sent in just about every other situation - basically when the system wants the program to end. For instance when systemd wants to stop the service or the default signal with programs like kill pkill htop etc. You should catch both of these signals.

That is not true though. The vast majority of people are people that don’t do much on their systems at all. Maybe look at Facebook or a few sites, write the occasional document or email and maybe play a few simple games. The type of people that have never heard of Linux or even know what an OS is let alone able to switch to another one. Those types of people will be perfectly happy on Linux if it came pre installed.

The people switching ATM and having issues are the highly technical people that have far more complex requirements and for those it does depend on the person and what they need to do.

The low percentage of users is not a sign of of it not being ready, just the sheer marketing and effort Microsoft has put into making windows the default option.

If that were the main goal why not just ban them from the extension store? Or why allow manifest v3 extensions to block requests at all? Ad blockers still work and this did not kill off any of them. Just forced them to change some of their functions. I don’t doubt the executive overlords are happy about the turmoil that this has done to ad blockers but they would be pissed if that was the only or main goal of this as there are still loads of effective adblockers about.

That is a more complex story then that. The manifest v3 changes primary give a lot of security and privacy changes that stop extensions from doing a lot of questionable things in the background on all your page you visit. But that does stop ad blockers from doing a lot of what they currently do - blocking in page elements and modifying the pages you visit. But it does not block them from blocking page requests so ad blockers like ublockorigin lite can still function in a more limited capacity to block ads.

I do think the teams outside of the chrome team are happy for this change - but I don’t think the chrome team set out to do this purely or even mainly to block ads.

Besides even if they did it does not change my argument - whom ever buys chrome will likely want to squeeze it for more money then google currently are doing and will likely do far worst things like including ads directly in the browser. Or trying to monetize it in some other way.

I would love it if chrome where maintained by some non-profit foundation. But how likely is that going to be from a court order sell off?

I would rather they split up google in other ways first.

TBH I am not sure this will end well at all. Google needs to e broken up but splitting off chrome? What will that achieve? Chrome does not directly make any money for Google really, they don’t sell it, they don’t sell ads in it, they don’t even collect much personal data though it. No where near as much as they really could if they really wanted to. Google have not been terrible at managing chrome or pushing as much profit out of it as they could.

Instead they are using it to create a good platform for all the rest of their services where they actually make money. So what will selling off this loss leader do for chrome? Most likely it will get bought up by someone else that will want to see a return on investment that wont be using it as a loss leader. Which I can very well see it getting en-shitified like everything else that is purely driven by profit.

Best case it is gets bought by a non profit foundation that can develop and take care of it - but lets be real, they wont have the money to out compete anyone wanting to buy it to make more money.

I personally don’t really trust google with my browser either - hence why I avoid chrome. But I would trust anyone seeking to buy it for profit far less and can very well see this as a overall negative if the wrong people buy it (which I see as more likely).

That being said, I don’t keep one in my car.

Now is the time to change that.

Sounds like you just need to keep the data on your server and use samba or NFS and a network mount on the other devices.

Or refactored at a later date.

I no longer use git stash. I found far too many issues with it. Merge conflicts and old no longer useful stashing building up, forgetting what was on it and which branch it came from and other things. These days the only time I stash is with --autostash on a git rebase as that is very temporary.

Instead I have moved to a worktree where I just commit everything on the main branch. Then use a different worktree to create a branch and cherry pick from main and create prs from that branch.

No need to stash as my main worktree never changes off the main branch and my second worktree never has local changes that are not committed.

If I need to change focus or fix a bug I can just do that, commit those changes only and cherry pick to a new branch all without affecting my current work (assuming I have not changed the area the bug is in too much but that is not a big issue if you keep commits small and create PRs often so you don’t drift too far from master).

If I have drifted too far I can always create a new worktree from origin and not touch my local main.

It is about WPEngine not contributing enough back to Wordpress, in terms of development effort or money. Apparently the trademark is the only legal grounds they have to go after WPEngine to try and get them to contribute back more.

If the trademark is indeed on the wordpress.org foundation and not the wordpress.com company, I didn’t think that’s a fair argument.

It is but the trademark is licensed to Automattic which handles all further commercial sub-licensing. And the CEO of Automattic sits on the board of the workpress foundation and is the creator of wordpress itself.

I don’t think either is a cancer to the FOSS Wordpress ecosystem. Both seem to give back.

I believe that this all started as the Automattic CEO did not think that WPEngine was contributing enough back to the wordpress ecosystem. Even after years of attempts to negotiate this. Seems he gave up trying and went after them for trademark rules as that was the only real leaver he had to pull. Since there is no obligation for WPEngine to contribute back to wordpress directly.

WPEngine using the Wordpress trademark makes me think they’re using Wordpress

Apparently this is contentious enough to be disputed in court not everyone thinks this and there are enough people that are confused over the matter that Automattic believe they can prove a trademark volition in court.

Lots more details in this interview with automattic CEO.

Dont know whos right here. Probably both sides are wrong to some degree. But worth hearing both sides of the argument before making a decision.