If you could only choose from github, gitlab and atlassan then I suppose.. But really anything newer that stays in existance has to be focused on quality from early enough to not be defined by path dependence problems and bad choices like those 3.
Because I don't trust someone else to not train or steal our source code, or, even legally, introduce some silly cause after we are invested/locked into their infra, that allows them to do whatever with our property.
And on equal footing, I trust our security more than theirs. Case in point.
The IQ of the smartest human, the perfect memory storing and recollection of computers, the fact that it never tires. I don't know if it's AGI but it's already something greater than us.
*everything. I've really been using it since 4.x. Imagine this: being able to upgrade a system in-place with freebsd-update from minor to major to minor version without everything breaking or having to say a prayer before. And that's just one thing I love about it. Clear separation of userland (/usr/local/etc), rock-solid stability in networking, zfs on root.
I had to do 'bonded' interfaces on Debian the other day. It's what, 5 different config files depending on which 'network manager' you use. In FreeBSD it's 5 lines in /etc/rc.conf and you're done.
And don't even get me started on betting which distribution (ahem CentOS) will go away next.
I actually laughed out loud. Try upgrading CentOS to Rocky vs FreeBSD 11 to 15 ( that's FOUR major versions from 2017 I think ), and tell me again how good it is.
In LTS environments where I need to upgrade OS's, FreeBSD is a no-brainer.
> I actually laughed out loud. Try upgrading CentOS to Rocky vs FreeBSD 11 to 15 ( that's FOUR major versions from 2017 I think ), and tell me again how good it is.
I laughed out loud, there is no in-place upgrade mechanism for that in those distros and never has been, that is the nature of those distros. They release patch/security updates until they go EOL, which is measured in units closer to decades than years.
I don’t have a problem with BSDs. That’s cool you like upgrading in place.
The best and most laugh-inducing part of your whole point is that centos now not only allows you to do in-place upgrades, that’s the whole fucking point.
So then what's the point of mentioning Rocky as CentOS's successor ? In what way is it 'succeeding' ? That you can do a fresh install of Rocky ? And those stuck on CentOS can't upgrade ? Really useful those decades of support if your distro goes belly up
You don’t know this ecosystem, clearly. I’m not going to explain it to you much more than I did.
Centos was the free version of red hat. Like redhat, centos never fucking ever offered in-place upgrades. Centos moved to stream as a sandbox for redhat, and rocky took over as the free redhat.
Ask an LLM or something, this level of ignorance is unbecoming.
You should go re-read this. All I said was I hated ubuntu. I don't even know what paradigm you're inquiring from at this point, and I have no clue how to answer your question.
We were never in agreement or disagreement. You've been arguing against a stance I don't have.
BSDs are cool. They pushed the OS ball forward on server/home computing, video game consoles, etc. Linux is also cool, they pushed the OS ball forward on server/home computing, video game consoles, etc.
There is a long and storied history of computer operating systems. This conversation has shown me you're not aware of said history. You should go learn yourself up some.
You actually said Rocky was a successor to CentOS as well, which is what I responded to. As someone that tried to upgrade CentOS to Rocky, I can tell you that it may succeed it in name only, if that's what you meant. Physically you have to start over. If you re-read my first reply, I said as much originally.
Weird, I feel I'm talking to an LLM with a limited context window.
>>Centos didn’t go away. It changed. Rocky (et. al.) took the old centos role, and >>I see this as a win/win for everybody.
>>Ubuntu is the disaster Linux distro, I won’t touch Ubuntu if I have any other >>option.
My team of 6 people has been building a software to compete with an already established piece of software written by a major software corporation. I'm not saying we'll succeed, I'm not saying we'll be better nor that we will cover every corner case they do and that they learned over the past 30 years. But 6 senior devs are getting stuff done at an insane pace. And if we can _attempt_ to do this, which would have been unthinkable 2 years ago, I can only wonder what will happen next.
If the goal is to simply undercut the incumbent with roughly the same product than it doesn't really matter if the incumbent starts using LLMs too as their cost structure, margin expectations, etc. are already relatively set.
100%- which is what I'm telling everyone. I am in big tech and it doesn't matter that I can write what I used to in 1 week in 5 minutes. Meetings, reviews, design docs, politics, etc. etc. mean how much code is written is irrelevant. Productivity in big tech is pretty low because of organizational overhead. You just can't get anything done. Being able to get more work done with less people is the real game changer because less people don't suffer from those "coordination headwinds".
Bingo. Most of my employees come from big tech (not faang, but big corps ) where they felt they couldn't really deliver what they wanted and what they're capable of. These guys love to not just code, but to create and deliver stuff.
Yeah I’m curious how much the moat of big software companies will shrink over the next few years. How long before I can ask a chatbot to build me a windows-like OS from scratch (complete with an office suite) and it can do a reasonable job?
And what happens then? Will we stop using each others code?
Just hired a 45yo who excels and loves and thrives doing this stuff. Proxmox, local storage, local backups + offsite backups. 1Pb of data, colocation costs are 5k/month. Guess AWS costs for similar
What a joke of a comment. Trump and Musk and Vance explicitly support every anti-EU party in a half-dozen EU countries. Cuz they wanna make EU stronger, durrr.
Obviously I know "jad" but I don't see any issue with calling venom "trucizna". Natural languages aren't C++ and you don't get compiler errors when you speak - to me, there is no issue calling both venoms and poison trucizna. Polish dictionary doesn't seem to contradict it either:
Nobody would say „trujący wąż” (poisonous snake) or „jadowity grzyb” (venomous mushroom). The distinction is similar to English. There are exceptions and contexts where it can be used interchangeably but arguably the same is true for English.
Italy, the core remnant of the Roman Empire, has unmatched language diversity, often varies even from town to town. It's a colorful mosaic of micro cultures and customs where people from one region using different words for venom/poison is completely normal, in their local dialect. Everyone speaks standard Italian though.
You've never visited Italy ? They're not that far away and I'm sure you'll love it.
> The point is, both are correct(afaik) while in English venom and poison are definitely two different things.
No, the situation in English matches your description exactly: all of these things are called poison. The word venom is almost never used in natural speech.
Furthermore, if you ask English speakers what the difference between poison and venom is, by far the two most common responses will be "there isn't one" and "I don't know". icyfox is just looking to be annoying.
(Another popular option will probably be "it's called venom when you're talking about snakes", which explains roughly 100% of use of venom in natural speech.)
1. They never returned 92tons of gold. The vast majority of the national treasure is still in Moscow. I hope the EU ties this to the current Russian assets frozen in the EU.
2. Bolsheviks ? Russia collapsed in 1917 and Bassarabia voted to join Romania. There was no Russian control in Bassarabia, no war, no fight.
Nobody forced them, true, they were in dire circumstances, but it proves even more how much Russians can be trusted. 0. Shitty country since forever.
1. You use 'ex' to mean except ? In common parlance ex means 'example'. So your phrase becomes: National treasures (example gold) were returned in '35 and '56.
Which is what I responded to.
Gold was part bars and part rare historical coins.
Also still unreturned, which is extremely valuable:
Queen Marie’s jewels were not returned
The Romanian Crown Jewels were not returned
Royal and dynastic archives
Private deposits of Romanian citizens
Orthodox Church treasures
2. Who were these Bolsheviks ? There was no government, they weren't Russian / Soviet - what were they ? Give me some source that shows Romania was fighting Tsarist Russia / URSS / Russia (?). Your article doesn't clarify that at all. I wonder why.
Romania entrusted Tsarist Russia with its national treasure.
Do you deny there's state continuity from before 1918 ?
You meant to say "ex." is common, noting the period for the abbreviation. Whereas ex is commonly used (See "ex dividend".) as I did above.
I'm skipping the rest of your reply because it's a waste of time after you loaded up with a spiteful tone -- "you don't know what you're talking about"-- only to be wrong about language and somehow you dispute the Wikipedia article which clearly mentions (anti-)Bolshevik opponents.
You linked a dictionary that's paywalled and further, all of the 12 stub entries appear to refute your interpreted meaning of "ex" from earlier and affirm my usage.
Then your piggybacking on their infrastructure. I don't think they are unreasonable. "It can be done for pennies, but I won't" sort of implies that it does indeed take more than pennies worth of effort.
It's a yearly fee that amounts to a couple hundred dollars. That's about an hour of an engineer's salary. Zulip's customers make this less than a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a rounding error.
Zulip is a kind of annoying name, and every time I encounter it it's in the context of some open source platform hiding their community discussion forum behind a login. I'm left with a not very great impression.
FYI, for a while now you can mark any Zulip channel as public, which means the chat history for that channel does not require a login to view. See https://zulip.com/help/public-access-option for more details.
I assume they mean the fact I myself know what Mattermost is but I've never heard of... now I even have to go back and load up the comment to find it's name again, Zulip
I don't like the way they push you to give a subject to every discussion. In a way it's more like a newsgroup replacement than Slack, whereas Mattermost is a straight-up Slack clone.
reply