Heartbreaking…
this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2025
48 points (98.0% liked)
badposting
592 readers
190 users here now
badposting is a comm where you post badly
This is not a [email protected] alternative. This is not a [email protected] alternative. This is a place for you to post your bad posts.
Ever had a really shitty bit idea? Joke you want to take way past the point of where it was funny? Want to feel like a stand-up comedy guy who's been bombing a set for the past 30 minutes straight and at this point is just saying shit to see if people react to it? Really bad pun? A homemade cringe concoction? A cognitohazard that you have birthed into this world and have an urge to spread like chain mail?
Rules:
- Do not post good posts.
- Unauthorized goodposting is to be punished in the manner of commenting the phrase "GOOD post" followed by an emoji that has not yet been used in the thread
- Use an emoticon/kaomoji/rule-three-abiding ASCII art if the rations run out
- This is not a comm where you direct people to other people's bad posts. This is a comm where you post badly.
- This rule intentionally left blank.
- If you're struck for rule 3, skill issue, not allowed to complain about it.
Code of Conduct applies just as much here as it does everywhere else. Technically, CoC violations are bad posts. On the other hand: L + ratio + get ~~better~~ worse material bozo
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The dev of temple os threw slurs around like crazy. I wouldn't call him woke.
we have no choice but to log off
TempleOS is a brilliant project for just one dude, and I feel really bad for the dev. Untreated mental illness sucks ass.
Why did he switch to Linux?
Considering how bad Windows 11 is to use I think everyone should switch to Linux.
I never bothered asking this question cause I'm not a nerd: But what makes Linux "better" than the alternatives?
Out of all the Free Software operating systems, Linux has the greatest hardware support (by a longshot). At times, it has even had better support for consumer hardware than Windows (e.g. when Microsoft changed the driver architecture with the introduction of Windows Vista, a lot of old drivers never got ported, or with the introduction of the TPM requirement, a lot of CPUs are no longer officially supported in W11 - though they can be made to work with third-party hacks). This is the primary reason why it is the most popular. It is the only alternative operating system that you can install on just about anything and have good chances of it working. There are other alternatives like FreeBSD/OpenBSD, but you need to start being a bit more discerning about which hardware you purchase when running these, and you may still forgo some modern niceties, like robust Bluetooth support.
Everything stems back to that it is open source; meaning you, the user, have control over the software that runs on your system, not some corporation.
There are thousands of other benefits that result from that.
Don't like the way some piece of software works? Fix, fork, or replace the project.
The software ecosystem on Linux has virtually no spyware or adware outside cross-platform apps from big tech companies, so you don't need to do dozens of workarounds just to prevent your system from narcing on you to the NSA.
Given that CPU cycles aren't being wasted on shit that benefits corporations like adware and telemetry, your system will probably run a lot faster on Linux.
There isn't really a single piece of software that makes Linux better; it is the fact that GPL licensing makes it too toxic for corporations to build their make adware platforms on.
On Windows, MacOS, iOS, or Android, you can generally assume any software with internet permission is pretty much spyware. Linux software is generally built to work offline unless it must interface with remote servers for its functionality.
hmm, yes I see, of course......what's a fork?
A perfect example would be Hexbear. Lemmy was a free software project. Hexbear needed some custom functionality and had different immediate priorities to the Lemmy project, so we took the code and made our own custom changes. Things like this happen frequently in the Free Software world. Another example is Chocolate Doom vs. Crispy Doom. The former has the deliberate goal of simulating the original DOS experience to the point of reproducing bugs, while the latter intends to add a lot of quality of life features. Both of which are actually indirect forks of the original GPL Doom source code release.
Most of the time, if you make some personal improvements to a piece of software, you can submit them to the original authors and have them included, but in many instances the changes might not be appropriate. Maybe it improves performance in once case while making it worse in another. Maybe it is not polished enough. Maybe it goes beyond the scope of the original project (adds a lot of complexity the original authors would rather not worry about). Maybe the original project is no longer maintained and there is no one to submit changes to in the first place. Could be any number of reasons.
Forking is what you do when you take an open source project and create a new parallel version that implements some behavior you want.
Usually you try to merge your changes into the original project, but if they won't accept them, you create a fork of the project.
There's the whole open source thing. Linux is built for anyone in the world to use and for anyone in the world to help build it. (There's some weird issues with US sanctions that effect how much Russians can do, but they can contribute).
Beyond this, the main advantages are:
Better than Mac OS: runs on other, cheaper, hardware
Better than windows: no shitty ads or AI and feels much more responsive
Better than other open source OS: it's complicated, but basically Linux is bigger so it has more people working on it, and more support for hardware.
At this point, inertia.
Most of the experience you can get in Linux you can get in several other systems (i. e. the BSDs or Solaris derivatives) but 90% of the time, Linux will have the broadest hardwsre and niche softwsre supoort.
It's likely that affordable PC Unix would have ended up based on BSD had there been less of a legal fracas around the codebase at just the moment Linux hit the scene.
Praise be to the RNG, but we still have plenty of increasingly niche options of operating systems. The more people use Linux, the more my hipster ass is drawn to BSD
Why use BSD though?
Seems like the only real benefits are better docs and hardening for some stuff. But those come with so many compromises given how few things are built for BSDs.
It was just a joke about wanting to be different
Microkernels are probably a better design, but not better enough to overcome inertia/better support/bigger user base
Definitely a better design. Are the BSDs microkernels? I am quite unfamiliar with the architecture of BSD kernels. I have only interacted with userspace BSD software and their manpages.
Yeah I misremembered that, not sure where I got that from. I think at one point maybe BSD was smaller and more modular? But looks like little difference in recent years
I think they are more minimal, but I don't see them mentioned in discussion of microkernels.
I really do not like that guy
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
I am giving up Rust, and will only program in Holy C from now on. Blessed is God's operating system!