ZFS is widely used with Linux in HPC (https://computing.llnl.gov/projects/openzfs). Is asking users to install ZFS separately really that much of a lift for ZFS's target audience?

Being out-of-tree means that kernel refactors break ZFS, and that it has a lot fewer hands and eyeballs available for the kinds of bugs that require internal design changes to fix (rather than paper over).

Most people don't blindly run the latest kernel. I don't think I ever ran into issues with out of kernel modules on a stable distro.

Asking for seperate install of a filesystem is a big deal. It severely limits how the filesystem can be used.

How is the MDM situation for Linux?

Would traditional HPC applications using FP64 gain anything from CDNA4 compared to the MI300A?

Probably not. They should wait for MI430.

>Then of course rule of law doesn't apply anymore because the strong man in charge is the law,

Is it any accident that JD and Elon keep calling for "rule of the people" instead of "rule of law".

You sound like an active learner who could become a top programmer even without LLMs. Most students will take the path of least resistance.

There is absolutely a thing where self-motivated autodidacts can benefit massively more from these new tools than people who prefer structured education.

Paradoxically, those self-motivated autodidacts will have to be without the stress and pressure of delivering things on time, and thus get largely limited to recreational programmers who don't have as much skin in the game in the first place.

Trust me, I am under enormous stress and pressure right now, more than at any other time in my life. I’m not someone sitting on a mountaintop, free of all cares. I’m someone trapped in a box that’s sinking under the waves, desperately trying to find a way to escape.

I approach problems with curiosity because I know that this is the only way I’ll find a way to survive and thrive again.

>Our constitution is something to feel shame for—this obviously no longer represents us or our values in any way. Why would we look to 18th century aristocrats that share basically no values with us to see ourselves? We have real rights we care about—shelter, healthcare, education, and food.

There's an Amendment process for updating the Constitution. It's been used many times, most recently in 1992.

That amendment that you reference, while it did finally pass in 92, was originally introduced in 1789 by the first Congress.

> There's an Amendment process for updating the Constitution. It's been used many times, most recently in 1992.

Ok? Why would we go through that when we could just chuck that bitch off a cliff and start fresh? Are you trapped in 1779 and surrounded by rich, white, landed assholes? Why would you think this document represents the values of anyone you know or love? What precise language would make you think this?

We could emphasize the actual values of the people who live here—diversity, individualism, community, education, shelter, growth, appreciation of nature, appreciation for both idk diners and jazz.

Rather than fucking property, a cancer on humanity that has not yet extracted its full harm.

The U.S. constitution is about the structure of the government and the things it can and cannot do. It's a remarkably short and readable document for what it is and when it was first written. And while it has been amended very slowly, it has been amended all the way up until today.

It seems you have an issue with just one part of it, the bill of rights. Besides property---which doesn't just mean land---that part addresses such other "outdated" concepts as speech, assembly, religion, rights of the individual in criminal investigations and trials, and a number of others. What connects all these ideas together is that they are the rights the people have _against_ government action. Things the government should not do to harm people.

That purpose is really important. The constitution is not, and should not be, a list of good policies or social values. Most of it is a list of specific things the government did in the past---some of them truly heinous things---that it is not allowed to do anymore. There's only one notable exception: the 18th amendment, meant to enforce the social values of the time and which was, ya know, repealed later for being a disaster.

Tbh, I really don't think there's much of value in the constitution for most people. It seems easier to characterize as a fig leaf for the crimes the state commits against its citizens (see eg our prisons, or our treatment of immigrants, the extremely shallow protections we have against our employers, etc).

> It seems you have an issue with just one part of it, the bill of rights. Besides property---which doesn't just mean land---that part addresses such other "outdated" concepts as speech, assembly, religion, rights of the individual in criminal investigations and trials, and a number of others. What connects all these ideas together is that they are the rights the people have _against_ government action. Things the government should not do to harm people.

Notably, we do not address material needs. It's hard to give a damn about speech, assembly, religion, and whatever people consider "rights" to mean, if we let people live on the street. It's hard to imagine an america that would feed its own people if we didn't produce such a ridiculous amount of food our food wastage is measured on the proportions of entire country's consumption.

Such an observation necessarily implies I'm going to view the constitution as broken. Who gives a damn about speech when we can't house our neighbors? The cost of housing would be quite small compared to the damage of stepping over a person to enter your workplace or home. It's just simple cruelty that persists such behavior.

You give a damn about speech. You're publicly criticizing the foundational document of a government, and calling that government a failure. That open criticism is necessary for change to happen and, in the United States, the constitution forbids the government from removing that criticism or punishing you for it.

The constitution is intentionally more difficult to amend than an ordinary law. The entire point is that the government cannot easily remove restrictions on itself. It's not an appropriate place to put, say, housing or employment laws, which should be ordinary laws so they can keep up with a complex and rapidly changing world. It's also not an appropriate place to put a statement that housing is important or that there is a right to housing, because such a statement is unenforceable and would need a separate law designed to enforce that right. There are plenty of countries with a "constitutional right to housing" that still have homelessness because it's such a difficult issue to solve.

Throwing a constitution out and starting over would be even more difficult than amending it and would lose what's already in it. Maybe we need an amendment ending prison labor and private prisons. Maybe we need an amendment extending more rights to immigrants. That doesn't mean that the constitution as it already exists is invalid and worthless.

> (other than being almost 100 years old)

Age alone shouldn't disqualify a law. The law above all other laws, aka the Constitution, is more than 200 years old.

In this case, age is not what disqualifies the law. Rather, what renders the law inapplicable to this situation is some combination of:

1. another statute that super-cedes the 1930 statute because it specifically limits Presidential emergency powers in the context of balance-of-trade issues. See around p. 35 of the slip opinion.

2. The Constitution itself, which limits Congress's ability to cede its own powers.

People love to say things like this, but much like electing an 80 year old president, it should perhaps be a trigger for a more thorough evaluation.

i don't think anyone would disagree that a law can "age out", but simply ignoring it because it's old versus revisiting it's intent and modifying/removing/etc are two very different strategies.

Unmodified law? The law in question has been amended many, many, many times in the last 100 years.

For goodness sake, the original law set specific tariffs for 20,000 different goods. Little of the original law still exists unmodified.

In my experience, the main weakness of Linux distros' package management experience is they don't distinguish core system functionality from add-on software. After all, a Linux distro is ultimately just a bag of packages. Every package installs into the global `/usr` directory, and the package manager treats third-party packages and system packages equally. The Windows analogue would be if all software installed themselves into the Windows folder, or if you could uninstall ntoskrnl from Add/Remove programs. This leads to several problems:

1. It's easy to inadvertently break one's system. How often have users accidentally uninstalled their desktop environment due a buggy dependency specification or dependency solver? Shouldn't there be a whitelist of core system packages and files that should never be touched during ordinary package transactions? There was also a Fedora bug maybe 1 year ago where a problem with the Google Chrome RPM's GPG signing key blocked system updates unless one manually overrode the package manager transaction to skip broken packages. Imagine if Chrome could cause Windows updates to fail or if a misconfigured Homebrew package could block MacOS updates.

2. It's easy to accumulate cruft over time because there's no out-of-box tracking of software I've added compared to be the base system. I could manually keep a list in a text file, but what about any dependencies of the packages on that list? What about any config files in `/etc` left behind by packages even after they are uninstalled? I'd like an easy way to revert my system to its out-of-box condition without carefully inspecting every line of `dpkg -l` (of which there could hundreds or thousands). With Homebrew on MacOS I can just blow away `/opt/homebrew`.

> It's easy to inadvertently break one's system

rpm/yum/dnf actually have a system for this called protected packages which can't be uninstalled without some ceremony on the part of the caller. Distros use this feature quite sparingly and reserve it for cases where you will truly break your system. Sometimes you want to uninstall your DE.

What is core for you is add on for someone else.

1. apt install kubernetes-client

Your steps were for adding a third-party vendor to the precious list of trusted software. I would argue that for the impact it has (giving a 3rd party access to your computer) it is really pretty easy.

If Linux libraries had that much respect for backward compatibility, there would never had been any demand for Flatpak. Flatpak (and snap) is merely a workaround for the lack of a common "Linux platform" with comprehensive, versioned APIs analogous to the Windows API or Android API. After all, Flatpak essentially provides a way to run a distribution (provided by Flatpak runtimes) inside the host distribution.

I think that was the role of the distro to integrate a common theme for the various versions of gtk and qt. Yes, it’s often duct taped. But apart from freedesktop, we don’t have an org dictating a common API for stuff like how a graphical app interacts with the DE.