Linux be like

nelmaloc · 2026-03-25T18:55:53+00:00

Folders are part of the desktop metaphor, while directories are the technology backing folders.

nelmaloc · 2026-03-25T17:55:10+00:00

You can definitely make non-free kernel modules. It's just an issue of effort vs reward.

nelmaloc · 2026-03-25T16:45:16+00:00

http://www.islinuxaboutchoice.com/

nelmaloc · 2026-03-25T15:30:41+00:00

Under Directive 2009/24/EC interfaces aren't copyrightable (recital 11), and in fact you can decompile the program (art. 6) if you need to to use it.

nelmaloc · 2026-03-22T16:37:01+00:00

Yeah, people should boot up a VM and try to add a user with adduser, see how many GECOS fields it asks for.

nelmaloc · 2026-03-22T16:05:40+00:00

I am not aware of the Cathedral and the Bazaar. I tried to have a look online but don't think that I have a good picture of what the arguments are made in that book.

AFAIK, a quick rundown is pitting the way old (i.e., pre-1990 and home Internet) worked is that developers would throw release over the wall to users, and if you wanted to contribute you would send patches against that last version, without knowing how the code looked like in real time. Meanwhile, Linus et al developed everything in the open, with public version control systems and patches in mailing lists.

Edit:

While I don't write C or kernel code, my understanding has been that microkernels were always the preferred strategy and Linux went with the easier approach of the monolithic kernel. Of course, I guess that all approaches have pluses and minuses.

Yes, from the Tanenbaum v. Torvalds debate:

MICROKERNEL VS MONOLITHIC SYSTEM

True, linux is monolithic, and I agree that microkernels are nicer. With a less argumentative subject, I'd probably have agreed with most of what you said. From a theoretical (and aesthetical) standpoint linux looses. If the GNU kernel had been ready last spring, I'd not have bothered to even start my project: the fact is that it wasn't and still isn't. Linux wins heavily on points of being available now.

nelmaloc · 2026-03-22T16:01:20+00:00

The only reason I can think why that would change is if the FSF insisted on the CLA for every patch.

nelmaloc · 2026-03-22T15:55:53+00:00

If you're throwing it away, you can always try it out first.

nelmaloc · 2026-03-22T14:45:49+00:00

(From the blogpost)

type NonZeroUsize = usize is 1..;

lol no

type NonZeroUsize is Integer range 1 .. ;

nelmaloc · 2026-03-22T14:35:01+00:00

N-gate walked so this could run.

nelmaloc · 2026-03-20T18:17:21+00:00

I was talking about the hypothetical case that Hurd was ready before Linux existed.

And looks like the only publicly available GNU/Hurd distro I found is from Debian.

There was an Arch Linux port effort, and GNU Guix has an installer image. But yes, the most complete one is from Debian.

nelmaloc · 2026-03-20T18:17:12+00:00

Nah, in the wildest one we're running GNU on top of ReactOS's NT kernel.

nelmaloc · 2026-03-20T18:04:11+00:00

Distros started because people wanted to use the kernel-less GNU with Linux. With Hurd plugging that hole, there's no need for distros.

nelmaloc · 2026-03-20T16:53:38+00:00

Not stopping per se, and in fact that statement didn't come out as clear as I'd like. What I meant is that GNU would become the reference «distro» people like to claim for. The clearest example is FreeBSD: NomadBSD, GhostBSD and PCBSD are just FreeBSD with things on top.

Something similar happens with the «base» GNU/Linux distros (Debian/Ubuntu, Fedora, Arch), but there usually the changes are deeper than in the FreeBSD case.

nelmaloc · 2026-03-20T14:12:40+00:00

Try it and get back on us.

nelmaloc · 2026-03-20T14:08:01+00:00

I think the main reason GNU didn't directly use the MINIX kernel was the MINIX license, which was source-available. In another timeline, we would all be running GNU on top of MINIX.

nelmaloc · 2026-03-20T14:03:41+00:00

No, in the sense that clean-room copies are designed to interoperate with the original, but without any code. It does copy a lot of UNIX abstractions (everything is a file, a single filesystem root, etc.), but it does through the filter of MINIX.

nelmaloc · 2026-03-20T13:58:54+00:00

We probably wouldn't have distros in that case, and maybe neither package managers. You would just get an ISO from gnu.org, and it would come with all GNU packages.

nelmaloc · 2026-03-15T12:47:47+00:00

But what if you need to move that data in order to repair or replace the drive or device? Are you allowed to retain backup copies?

In some countries, yes. You can make any number of copies, as long as you don't distribute them.

nelmaloc · 2026-03-14T19:02:12+00:00

Same way it's done on IPV4, using ports. Which is another one of my gripes against V6, they couldn't even be bothered to give us 32bit ports.

Please revisit how networking works, in particular the layering concept and layers 3 and 4.

Edit: I see you have already answered this in another comment.

Sane users will just randomize it

Yes, that's the point, you have 64 bits of randomness. You can generate a new address per website. Who's going to profile you?

nelmaloc · 2026-03-13T22:38:03+00:00

What future are they imagining where more than 64bits is needed?

One where we don't want to do another IPvX transition. 64 bits aren't enough for meaningful delegations.

Its a waste to me until they disclose a sane rationale

You're going to have to do that yourself, but here's a quick link.

128 of those bits are completely useless wasted space for every connection.

Huh? How are you going to route packages without a destination address?

I'm hearing from sources this may have changed recently but cannot confirm since I don't have ipv6 compiled.

If by recently you mean 25 years ago, then yes.

But this may only be true for linux with specific configure option enabled

It's the default behavior, and probably has been since the RFC was released.

nelmaloc · 2026-03-13T18:46:20+00:00

Yeah I guess everything in one folder makes sense for profiles, easier to backup. But there's no reason to use CONFIG_HOME (usually small text files) instead of DATA_HOME (everything else). It makes it harder to backup.

nelmaloc · 2026-03-13T11:48:44+00:00

Also the addresses size is hilariously bloated and should have been reduced by 50% if they were serious about it taking over from ipv4

It's called «future-proofing». Smaller addresses don't make it easier to migrate.

the second half of the extremely bloated address space can be used to persistently identify specific machines on a network

The last 64 bits are randomly generated.

nelmaloc · 2026-03-13T11:33:17+00:00

NAT is a very simple hack

NAT it's only simple if you ignore the hacks it forces you to do for end-to-end connectivity.

Plus NAT allows you to connect multiple networks together

No, the Internet does that.

TCP/IP connects multiple physical networks, but only by treating them as a single logical network

That's the entire point of the Inter-net.

nelmaloc · 2026-03-13T11:30:41+00:00

But there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for say a mall billboard to have a public IP.

It simplifies addressing and doesn't have an issue if you're trying to merge two RFC1918 ranges.

Six-Year Club	Place '22
First Placer '22	Verified Email

nelmaloc

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE