I was thinking back to CD players. Switching tracks took a moment, although I donāt know anymore how long exactly. IIRC, playing CDs on a computer was a bit slower than in a dedicated player.
Donāt worry, switching to the next OGG file on my disk is basically instant. š
I was thinking back to CD players. Switching tracks took a moment, although I donāt know anymore how long exactly. IIRC, playing CDs on a computer was a bit slower than in a dedicated player.
Donāt worry, switching to the next OGG file on my disk is basically instant. š
I was thinking back to CD players. Switching tracks took a moment, although I donāt know anymore how long exactly. IIRC, playing CDs on a computer was a bit slower than in a dedicated player.
Donāt worry, switching to the next OGG file on my disk is basically instant. š
I was thinking back to CD players. Switching tracks took a moment, although I donāt know anymore how long exactly. IIRC, playing CDs on a computer was a bit slower than in a dedicated player.
Donāt worry, switching to the next OGG file on my disk is basically instant. š
Thatās what I meant by āabsoluteā performance: A human being tolerates a system boot up time of 0.5-2 minutes, for example, so thereās an absolute/fixed duration that any task is allowed to take. Boot: 0.5-2 minutes. Opening Word: 1-10 seconds. Saving an image file: 1-10 seconds. Time until the next song starts to play when you click ānext trackā: 0-5 seconds. Stuff like that. As long as we donāt exceed those durations, people will be more or less happy.
Wasted potential? Ab-so-fucken-lutely.
(Maybe Iām repeating myself. Iām tired. Sorry. š )
Thatās what I meant by āabsoluteā performance: A human being tolerates a system boot up time of 0.5-2 minutes, for example, so thereās an absolute/fixed duration that any task is allowed to take. Boot: 0.5-2 minutes. Opening Word: 1-10 seconds. Saving an image file: 1-10 seconds. Time until the next song starts to play when you click ānext trackā: 0-5 seconds. Stuff like that. As long as we donāt exceed those durations, people will be more or less happy.
Wasted potential? Ab-so-fucken-lutely.
(Maybe Iām repeating myself. Iām tired. Sorry. š )
Thatās what I meant by āabsoluteā performance: A human being tolerates a system boot up time of 0.5-2 minutes, for example, so thereās an absolute/fixed duration that any task is allowed to take. Boot: 0.5-2 minutes. Opening Word: 1-10 seconds. Saving an image file: 1-10 seconds. Time until the next song starts to play when you click ānext trackā: 0-5 seconds. Stuff like that. As long as we donāt exceed those durations, people will be more or less happy.
Wasted potential? Ab-so-fucken-lutely.
(Maybe Iām repeating myself. Iām tired. Sorry. š )
Thatās what I meant by āabsoluteā performance: A human being tolerates a system boot up time of 0.5-2 minutes, for example, so thereās an absolute/fixed duration that any task is allowed to take. Boot: 0.5-2 minutes. Opening Word: 1-10 seconds. Saving an image file: 1-10 seconds. Time until the next song starts to play when you click ānext trackā: 0-5 seconds. Stuff like that. As long as we donāt exceed those durations, people will be more or less happy.
Wasted potential? Ab-so-fucken-lutely.
(Maybe Iām repeating myself. Iām tired. Sorry. š )
Browsing the web today feels similar to 25 years ago. Even all this wobbling that my link above demonstrates already existed back then (in a way), but it was caused by images loading so slowly. Then, for a brief moment, some browser (I donāt remember which one) had this brilliant feature of trying to keep the current scrolling position *stable* while the page was still loading. That was great. š This feature then got lost again, probably because itās too hard to do with JavaScript changing the DOM all the time. So now weāre back to the way it was before.
Corporations should give devs the slowest and oldest machines that they have. š Not only would this be more sustainable, it would also force them to optimize better.
Browsing the web today feels similar to 25 years ago. Even all this wobbling that my link above demonstrates already existed back then (in a way), but it was caused by images loading so slowly. Then, for a brief moment, some browser (I donāt remember which one) had this brilliant feature of trying to keep the current scrolling position *stable* while the page was still loading. That was great. š This feature then got lost again, probably because itās too hard to do with JavaScript changing the DOM all the time. So now weāre back to the way it was before.
Corporations should give devs the slowest and oldest machines that they have. š Not only would this be more sustainable, it would also force them to optimize better.
Browsing the web today feels similar to 25 years ago. Even all this wobbling that my link above demonstrates already existed back then (in a way), but it was caused by images loading so slowly. Then, for a brief moment, some browser (I donāt remember which one) had this brilliant feature of trying to keep the current scrolling position *stable* while the page was still loading. That was great. š This feature then got lost again, probably because itās too hard to do with JavaScript changing the DOM all the time. So now weāre back to the way it was before.
Corporations should give devs the slowest and oldest machines that they have. š Not only would this be more sustainable, it would also force them to optimize better.
Browsing the web today feels similar to 25 years ago. Even all this wobbling that my link above demonstrates already existed back then (in a way), but it was caused by images loading so slowly. Then, for a brief moment, some browser (I donāt remember which one) had this brilliant feature of trying to keep the current scrolling position *stable* while the page was still loading. That was great. š This feature then got lost again, probably because itās too hard to do with JavaScript changing the DOM all the time. So now weāre back to the way it was before.
Corporations should give devs the slowest and oldest machines that they have. š Not only would this be more sustainable, it would also force them to optimize better.
https://movq.de/v/112a927861/hiccupfx/
šš
https://movq.de/v/112a927861/hiccupfx/
šš
https://movq.de/v/112a927861/hiccupfx/
šš
https://movq.de/v/112a927861/hiccupfx/
šš
As we all know, writing a Wayland compositor from scratch is next to impossible. Luckily, thereās the wlroots project which aims to build a base library for this task. Basically every compositor except for GNOME and KDE uses it. (This is good! The less fragmentation, the better.)
wlroots is still very volatile, lots of changes with every release. Downstream users (i.e., the projects that write the actual compositor) have to constantly āchaseā changes in wlroots. dwl, my favorite compositor at the moment, has recently switched their
main branch to target the wlroots *git* version instead of the latest release. My understanding is that they *have* to do this in order to keep up with wlroots (maybe Iām wrong).Everything is volatile and a moving target.
Why does any of this matter for me? Because I have to eventually fork dwl or at least keep a patch set, and I donāt have the stamina to constantly fiddle with this stuff. Iām running my own X11 window manager, itās highly specialized, and using just āsome Wayland compositor out thereā is a *huge* step backward that Iām not willing to take. I tried, itās just painful and annoying with *zero* benefits.
So ā¦ it was fun experimenting with Wayland a bit, but Iām now back to waiting for things to settle down considerably.
As we all know, writing a Wayland compositor from scratch is next to impossible. Luckily, thereās the wlroots project which aims to build a base library for this task. Basically every compositor except for GNOME and KDE uses it. (This is good! The less fragmentation, the better.)
wlroots is still very volatile, lots of changes with every release. Downstream users (i.e., the projects that write the actual compositor) have to constantly āchaseā changes in wlroots. dwl, my favorite compositor at the moment, has recently switched their
main branch to target the wlroots *git* version instead of the latest release. My understanding is that they *have* to do this in order to keep up with wlroots (maybe Iām wrong).Everything is volatile and a moving target.
Why does any of this matter for me? Because I have to eventually fork dwl or at least keep a patch set, and I donāt have the stamina to constantly fiddle with this stuff. Iām running my own X11 window manager, itās highly specialized, and using just āsome Wayland compositor out thereā is a *huge* step backward that Iām not willing to take. I tried, itās just painful and annoying with *zero* benefits.
So ā¦ it was fun experimenting with Wayland a bit, but Iām now back to waiting for things to settle down considerably.
As we all know, writing a Wayland compositor from scratch is next to impossible. Luckily, thereās the wlroots project which aims to build a base library for this task. Basically every compositor except for GNOME and KDE uses it. (This is good! The less fragmentation, the better.)
wlroots is still very volatile, lots of changes with every release. Downstream users (i.e., the projects that write the actual compositor) have to constantly āchaseā changes in wlroots. dwl, my favorite compositor at the moment, has recently switched their
main branch to target the wlroots *git* version instead of the latest release. My understanding is that they *have* to do this in order to keep up with wlroots (maybe Iām wrong).Everything is volatile and a moving target.
Why does any of this matter for me? Because I have to eventually fork dwl or at least keep a patch set, and I donāt have the stamina to constantly fiddle with this stuff. Iām running my own X11 window manager, itās highly specialized, and using just āsome Wayland compositor out thereā is a *huge* step backward that Iām not willing to take. I tried, itās just painful and annoying with *zero* benefits.
So ā¦ it was fun experimenting with Wayland a bit, but Iām now back to waiting for things to settle down considerably.
As we all know, writing a Wayland compositor from scratch is next to impossible. Luckily, thereās the wlroots project which aims to build a base library for this task. Basically every compositor except for GNOME and KDE uses it. (This is good! The less fragmentation, the better.)
wlroots is still very volatile, lots of changes with every release. Downstream users (i.e., the projects that write the actual compositor) have to constantly āchaseā changes in wlroots. dwl, my favorite compositor at the moment, has recently switched their
main branch to target the wlroots *git* version instead of the latest release. My understanding is that they *have* to do this in order to keep up with wlroots (maybe Iām wrong).Everything is volatile and a moving target.
Why does any of this matter for me? Because I have to eventually fork dwl or at least keep a patch set, and I donāt have the stamina to constantly fiddle with this stuff. Iām running my own X11 window manager, itās highly specialized, and using just āsome Wayland compositor out thereā is a *huge* step backward that Iām not willing to take. I tried, itās just painful and annoying with *zero* benefits.
So ā¦ it was fun experimenting with Wayland a bit, but Iām now back to waiting for things to settle down considerably.
gaapgna from a while ago ā so this is just normal Aussie slang for AC/DC?! š¤Æš„“
gaapgna from a while ago ā so this is just normal Aussie slang for AC/DC?! š¤Æš„“
gaapgna from a while ago ā so this is just normal Aussie slang for AC/DC?! š¤Æš„“
gaapgna from a while ago ā so this is just normal Aussie slang for AC/DC?! š¤Æš„“
> I run it in a Work profile on my GrapheneOS phone that I can switch off at any time
Hmmmmmmm, I like that idea. If I could ban WhatsApp into a second profile and only switch it on every now and then, I would feel a little bit better about it.
(I don't really trust Android, though, and I suspect that apps can still install background services that are *always* active. Pure speculation and paranoid on my part, but still.)
> I run it in a Work profile on my GrapheneOS phone that I can switch off at any time
Hmmmmmmm, I like that idea. If I could ban WhatsApp into a second profile and only switch it on every now and then, I would feel a little bit better about it.
(I don't really trust Android, though, and I suspect that apps can still install background services that are *always* active. Pure speculation and paranoid on my part, but still.)
> I run it in a Work profile on my GrapheneOS phone that I can switch off at any time
Hmmmmmmm, I like that idea. If I could ban WhatsApp into a second profile and only switch it on every now and then, I would feel a little bit better about it.
(I don't really trust Android, though, and I suspect that apps can still install background services that are *always* active. Pure speculation and paranoid on my part, but still.)
> I run it in a Work profile on my GrapheneOS phone that I can switch off at any time
Hmmmmmmm, I like that idea. If I could ban WhatsApp into a second profile and only switch it on every now and then, I would feel a little bit better about it.
(I don't really trust Android, though, and I suspect that apps can still install background services that are *always* active. Pure speculation and paranoid on my part, but still.)
@aelaraji To be honest, I donāt like Matrix that much myself. We donāt use any of the fancy crypto features and all that, no federation either. And clients like āFluffyChatā look and feel pretty much like any other chat client. Itās a rather simple setup. Problem is just that itās not WhatsApp and *people want WhatsApp*, nothing else. š«¤ (Hence I have little hope that Signal would be a big success.)
@aelaraji To be honest, I donāt like Matrix that much myself. We donāt use any of the fancy crypto features and all that, no federation either. And clients like āFluffyChatā look and feel pretty much like any other chat client. Itās a rather simple setup. Problem is just that itās not WhatsApp and *people want WhatsApp*, nothing else. š«¤ (Hence I have little hope that Signal would be a big success.)
@aelaraji To be honest, I donāt like Matrix that much myself. We donāt use any of the fancy crypto features and all that, no federation either. And clients like āFluffyChatā look and feel pretty much like any other chat client. Itās a rather simple setup. Problem is just that itās not WhatsApp and *people want WhatsApp*, nothing else. š«¤ (Hence I have little hope that Signal would be a big success.)
@aelaraji To be honest, I donāt like Matrix that much myself. We donāt use any of the fancy crypto features and all that, no federation either. And clients like āFluffyChatā look and feel pretty much like any other chat client. Itās a rather simple setup. Problem is just that itās not WhatsApp and *people want WhatsApp*, nothing else. š«¤ (Hence I have little hope that Signal would be a big success.)
> Anyone who reads the CrowdStrike self-description and then buys the product has really earned a major fault.
The nasty thing is: Sysadmins donāt decide this, do they? The management does. And *they* donāt have to clean up this bloody fucking mess.
All the fellow sysadmins who were hit by this have my sympathies. š
> Anyone who reads the CrowdStrike self-description and then buys the product has really earned a major fault.
The nasty thing is: Sysadmins donāt decide this, do they? The management does. And *they* donāt have to clean up this bloody fucking mess.
All the fellow sysadmins who were hit by this have my sympathies. š
> Anyone who reads the CrowdStrike self-description and then buys the product has really earned a major fault.
The nasty thing is: Sysadmins donāt decide this, do they? The management does. And *they* donāt have to clean up this bloody fucking mess.
All the fellow sysadmins who were hit by this have my sympathies. š
> Anyone who reads the CrowdStrike self-description and then buys the product has really earned a major fault.
The nasty thing is: Sysadmins donāt decide this, do they? The management does. And *they* donāt have to clean up this bloody fucking mess.
All the fellow sysadmins who were hit by this have my sympathies. š
(Iām just glad it didnāt affect us at work.)
(Iām just glad it didnāt affect us at work.)
(Iām just glad it didnāt affect us at work.)
(Iām just glad it didnāt affect us at work.)
> Then there comes in feature creep.
This is driving me nuts. Everybody thinks that ādevelopment has to be kept alive!ā When people see a project without commits in the last 2 years, they think itās dead and not worth using. Bah, why? Software can be ādoneā. If no bugs are known, then thereās no need to change anything.
All these ideas are old. Iāve heard about much of this from meillo some 15 years ago and he didnāt come up with it, either.
Itās all super unpopular. Why? Many of my projects see a burst of commits in the beginning and then mostly just maintenance ā and thatās great. It saves me from so much trouble and work. For example, my X11 wallpaper setter was written in 2017, Iām using it daily all the time, it just works, boom, done.
A project isnāt dead if it doesnāt see commits anymore ā itās dead if nobody *maintains* it anymore.
> Then there comes in feature creep.
This is driving me nuts. Everybody thinks that ādevelopment has to be kept alive!ā When people see a project without commits in the last 2 years, they think itās dead and not worth using. Bah, why? Software can be ādoneā. If no bugs are known, then thereās no need to change anything.
All these ideas are old. Iāve heard about much of this from meillo some 15 years ago and he didnāt come up with it, either.
Itās all super unpopular. Why? Many of my projects see a burst of commits in the beginning and then mostly just maintenance ā and thatās great. It saves me from so much trouble and work. For example, my X11 wallpaper setter was written in 2017, Iām using it daily all the time, it just works, boom, done.
A project isnāt dead if it doesnāt see commits anymore ā itās dead if nobody *maintains* it anymore.
> Then there comes in feature creep.
This is driving me nuts. Everybody thinks that ādevelopment has to be kept alive!ā When people see a project without commits in the last 2 years, they think itās dead and not worth using. Bah, why? Software can be ādoneā. If no bugs are known, then thereās no need to change anything.
All these ideas are old. Iāve heard about much of this from meillo some 15 years ago and he didnāt come up with it, either.
Itās all super unpopular. Why? Many of my projects see a burst of commits in the beginning and then mostly just maintenance ā and thatās great. It saves me from so much trouble and work. For example, my X11 wallpaper setter was written in 2017, Iām using it daily all the time, it just works, boom, done.
A project isnāt dead if it doesnāt see commits anymore ā itās dead if nobody *maintains* it anymore.
> Then there comes in feature creep.
This is driving me nuts. Everybody thinks that ādevelopment has to be kept alive!ā When people see a project without commits in the last 2 years, they think itās dead and not worth using. Bah, why? Software can be ādoneā. If no bugs are known, then thereās no need to change anything.
All these ideas are old. Iāve heard about much of this from meillo some 15 years ago and he didnāt come up with it, either.
Itās all super unpopular. Why? Many of my projects see a burst of commits in the beginning and then mostly just maintenance ā and thatās great. It saves me from so much trouble and work. For example, my X11 wallpaper setter was written in 2017, Iām using it daily all the time, it just works, boom, done.
A project isnāt dead if it doesnāt see commits anymore ā itās dead if nobody *maintains* it anymore.
I guess itās irrelevant which platform Iām going to propose as an alternative to WhatsApp. Itās the same old problem: Almost all their contacts are on WhatsApp, so thatās what they want to use, end of story.
I guess itās irrelevant which platform Iām going to propose as an alternative to WhatsApp. Itās the same old problem: Almost all their contacts are on WhatsApp, so thatās what they want to use, end of story.
I guess itās irrelevant which platform Iām going to propose as an alternative to WhatsApp. Itās the same old problem: Almost all their contacts are on WhatsApp, so thatās what they want to use, end of story.
I guess itās irrelevant which platform Iām going to propose as an alternative to WhatsApp. Itās the same old problem: Almost all their contacts are on WhatsApp, so thatās what they want to use, end of story.
I had some pleasant experiences with public transportation lately, but that wasnāt Deutsche Bahn.
Would a bike or an ebike be an alternative for you? š¤
I had some pleasant experiences with public transportation lately, but that wasnāt Deutsche Bahn.
Would a bike or an ebike be an alternative for you? š¤
I had some pleasant experiences with public transportation lately, but that wasnāt Deutsche Bahn.
Would a bike or an ebike be an alternative for you? š¤
I had some pleasant experiences with public transportation lately, but that wasnāt Deutsche Bahn.
Would a bike or an ebike be an alternative for you? š¤
Do we think this is a problem? š¤ If so, you should be able to contact the admin in #nixers on libera.chat.
Do we think this is a problem? š¤ If so, you should be able to contact the admin in #nixers on libera.chat.
Do we think this is a problem? š¤ If so, you should be able to contact the admin in #nixers on libera.chat.
Do we think this is a problem? š¤ If so, you should be able to contact the admin in #nixers on libera.chat.
Very few people do take pride in building simple, elegant, high-quality systems, do they? Why is that? Why are huge shiny things with tons of features more attractive? š¤
I never explicitly thought about this, to be honest. It was only at the back of my head. And I never tried to teach our younger āstudentsā at work: āHey, itās a great achievement to build something simple and elegant. Thatās something to be proud of!ā
Worse, simple software is often described as āboringā. Yes, in a way, it is boring, because your brain doesnāt have to get into overdrive to understand it. But thatās exactly the point. And itās *hard to achieve that*! Simple software isnāt just āfewer lines of codeā, you have to be pretty clever to solve a problem in a simple and elegant way. So itās something to be proud of.
Could this be an intuitive, *emotional* way to get more people on board the āsimple softwareā-train? š¤
Very few people do take pride in building simple, elegant, high-quality systems, do they? Why is that? Why are huge shiny things with tons of features more attractive? š¤
I never explicitly thought about this, to be honest. It was only at the back of my head. And I never tried to teach our younger āstudentsā at work: āHey, itās a great achievement to build something simple and elegant. Thatās something to be proud of!ā
Worse, simple software is often described as āboringā. Yes, in a way, it is boring, because your brain doesnāt have to get into overdrive to understand it. But thatās exactly the point. And itās *hard to achieve that*! Simple software isnāt just āfewer lines of codeā, you have to be pretty clever to solve a problem in a simple and elegant way. So itās something to be proud of.
Could this be an intuitive, *emotional* way to get more people on board the āsimple softwareā-train? š¤
Very few people do take pride in building simple, elegant, high-quality systems, do they? Why is that? Why are huge shiny things with tons of features more attractive? š¤
I never explicitly thought about this, to be honest. It was only at the back of my head. And I never tried to teach our younger āstudentsā at work: āHey, itās a great achievement to build something simple and elegant. Thatās something to be proud of!ā
Worse, simple software is often described as āboringā. Yes, in a way, it is boring, because your brain doesnāt have to get into overdrive to understand it. But thatās exactly the point. And itās *hard to achieve that*! Simple software isnāt just āfewer lines of codeā, you have to be pretty clever to solve a problem in a simple and elegant way. So itās something to be proud of.
Could this be an intuitive, *emotional* way to get more people on board the āsimple softwareā-train? š¤
Very few people do take pride in building simple, elegant, high-quality systems, do they? Why is that? Why are huge shiny things with tons of features more attractive? š¤
I never explicitly thought about this, to be honest. It was only at the back of my head. And I never tried to teach our younger āstudentsā at work: āHey, itās a great achievement to build something simple and elegant. Thatās something to be proud of!ā
Worse, simple software is often described as āboringā. Yes, in a way, it is boring, because your brain doesnāt have to get into overdrive to understand it. But thatās exactly the point. And itās *hard to achieve that*! Simple software isnāt just āfewer lines of codeā, you have to be pretty clever to solve a problem in a simple and elegant way. So itās something to be proud of.
Could this be an intuitive, *emotional* way to get more people on board the āsimple softwareā-train? š¤
Focus on quality, focus on ādoing it rightā, make that your primary goal. And everything else shall fall into place.
If it only were that simple. š«¤š
Focus on quality, focus on ādoing it rightā, make that your primary goal. And everything else shall fall into place.
If it only were that simple. š«¤š
Focus on quality, focus on ādoing it rightā, make that your primary goal. And everything else shall fall into place.
If it only were that simple. š«¤š