zxzax

20 ms·

151.
by zxzax 5y ago
The submissions and completions are stored in a lock-free ring buffer, hence the name "uring."
152.
The Circular Business Model(hbr.org)
3 points by zxzax 5y ago|0 comments
153.
by zxzax 5y ago
The main benefit to me has been in cases that previously required a thread pool on top of epoll, it should be safe to get rid of the thread pool now and only use io_uring. Socket I/O of course doesn't really need a thread pool in
154.
by zxzax 5y ago
It seems it's pretty easy for an unbiased observer to spot that. In cases where a moderator is too biased, that's why there are multiple moderators that would all collectively make decisions about the code of conduct.
155.
The Limits of the “Sustainable” Economy(hbr.org)
5 points by zxzax 5y ago|1 comments
156.
by zxzax 5y ago
>the sorts of people who will harangue mods for admonishing them to be nice will, instead, harangue the mods about how their statement wasn't actually a personal attack. The solution there would be to make clear what constitutes a p
157.
by zxzax 5y ago
If you think those rules are vague and unclear, it's even worse when there is no code of conduct and the project's entire policy is "we do whatever the moderators feel that day."
158.
by zxzax 5y ago
From what glibc developers have told me, glibc supports a huge number of systems, and a lot of the "bloat" in glibc comes from supporting various architectures and operating systems accumulated over the last 30 years. In general,
159.
by zxzax 5y ago
> So 81,604 lines for src/core vs 17,263 for OpenRC. So why does systemd need 677,446 lines of C code in its entire tree if src/core is 81,604 lines? Do you want a real comprehensive answer to this? You can just skim through th
160.
by zxzax 5y ago
Sure some people might know about bugs before others, and may seek to abuse that knowledge, but I don't think that is limited to intelligence agencies, and I don't think that has anything to do with the size of the project either.
161.
by zxzax 5y ago
It doesn't need it, I think it was just something that was interesting to have. I have not seen anyone saying there were any plans to make it non-optional, and that would probably not make sense to do that, because there are a lot of o
162.
by zxzax 5y ago
Most of the new features are being done in separate daemons from the init. The lines of code relevant to only the init are in src/core, so your comparison would probably only make sense if you compared that folder. >Lennart just kee
163.
by zxzax 5y ago
I'm not sure what that means or how the second statement follows. You can't firewall the kernel from making network socket calls either, because the kernel is what implements the firewall. Of course the service manager is going to
164.
by zxzax 5y ago
The article has somewhat of a clickbait title. The bug was actually in polkit, which is available on every single one of those distributions you mentioned, and is a dependency of a bunch of other low-level daemons. It happens to be an optio
165.
by zxzax 5y ago
That's not strictly a good example. In Linux you can do that with mount namespaces, but the GUI around it is not there yet -- the capability system has to be implemented in user space, which I will say is definitely more difficult than
166.
by zxzax 5y ago
>Yes, that's specifically my preference, for a system the user can configure, easily/out of the box, without relying on third parties to patch some really simple stuff back in. I personally would describe that approach as actua
167.
by zxzax 5y ago
>GTK3 regressions from a GTK2 perspective It's a bit odd to read this sentence. GTK2 got its last minor release over 10 years ago, and was EOLed 6 months ago. It's a dead project. GTK3 is also feature frozen as of 6 months ago,
168.
by zxzax 5y ago
>This big difference between the Kernel Modules and GNOME Extensions is that we in the kernel community do not encourage out-of-tree modules. Indeed, they are strongly discouraged. It's not different, it's mostly the same with
169.
by zxzax 5y ago
>And consequently GTK is more of a Gnome 3 toolkit rather than a universal toolkit, which will affect non-gnome GTK apps. This is not really true, and has not affected anything that I've seen. Basically every GTK desktop (including
170.
by zxzax 5y ago
Hi Ted, thanks for replying. Those statements you've made are untrue. Just like kernel drivers, extensions don't break when someone is maintaining them. To be clear, the issue here is not that the DE was not receptive, the issue i
171.
by zxzax 5y ago
I think you are misinterpreting what is a normal level of disagreement in a project of that size. The project doesn't have enough money going through it to be lost in politics and power struggles. It's still very much volunteer-dr
172.
by zxzax 5y ago
That is a very strange way of looking at things. I have to say this every time, but somebody closing a bug report does not mean they have power over you. If you could force everyone to stop what they're doing and look at your bug repor
173.
by zxzax 5y ago
I think the suggestion there would be to find someone who is willing to maintain the extension when upstream does a new release.
174.
by zxzax 5y ago
Please don't assume bad faith. Extensions can be a solution to some problems, but they're obviously not perfect -- I'm not saying they are. >The problem is that there are huge numbers of dependencies, and if you hold back
175.
by zxzax 5y ago
That's great, I support you using KDE. But the fact is, if you really wanted that feature in core Gnome, someone would have to advocate for it, implement it, and then get that feature upstreamed, and then someone will have to maintain
176.
by zxzax 5y ago
Hi Ted, thanks for responding. The extension API is similar to the kernel's driver API, with the same caveats -- you can use it externally, but you need to track upstream for breaking changes, because upstream is always going to need t
177.
by zxzax 5y ago
>having to install third party pieces which may or may not break stuff, may or may not be supported for long, may or may not break on the next update Right, so that is a problem, but it's a different problem from lack of configurabi
178.
by zxzax 5y ago
I'm sorry, please don't assume bad faith, I'm not refusing. I just don't understand how opening a configuration dialog and doing a couple clicks to install an extension that changes the panels, is different from opening
179.
by zxzax 5y ago
I'm not sure what you mean twisting. If you're asking for the extension API to not be there, I think that would result in a strictly less configurable program. If that's not what you're asking for, then please clarify. A
180.
by zxzax 5y ago
I'm afraid I don't understand -- the extensions are configurability. That hasn't been removed. If you didn't have an API to configure these things, there would be no way to do it at all, so it still sounds like you'

More ›