BB_C

Because non-open ones are not available, even for a price. Unless you buy something bigger than the "standard" itself of course, like a company that is responsible for it or having access to it.

There is also the process of standardization itself, with committees, working groups, public proposals, ..etc involved.

Anyway, we can't backtrack on calling ISO standards and their likes "open" on the global level, hence my suggestion to use more precise language (“publicly available and sharable”) when talking about truly open standards.

The term open-standard does not cut it. People should start using "publicly available and sharable" instead (maybe there is a better name for it).

ISO standards for example are technically "open". But how relevant is that to a curious individual developer when anything you need to implement would require access to multiple "open" standards, each coming with a (monetary) price, with some extra shenanigans ^[archived]^ on top.

IETF standards however are actually truly open, as in publicly available and sharable.

It implies that the value of their policy work is significantly below...

It's always safe to assume that value to be negative unless proven otherwise actually.

Monthly Reminder: High or low, all Linux usage stats are fake.

@FizzyOrange@programming.dev

BTW, the snippet I pointed to, and the whole match block, is not incoherent. It's useless.

Alright. Explain this snippet and what you think it achieves:

tokio::task::spawn_blocking(move || -> Result { Ok(walkdir) })

Post the original code to !rust@programming.dev and point to where you got stock, because that AI output is nonsensical to the point where I'm not sure what excited you about it. A self-contained example would be ideal, otherwise, include the crates you're using (or the use statements).

Federation is irrelevant. Matrix is federated, yet most communities and users would lose communication if matrix.org got offline.

With, transport-only distributablity, which i think is what radicale offers, availability would depend on the peers. That means probably less availability than a big service host.

Distributed transport and storage would fix this. a la something like Tahoe-LAFS or (old) Freenet/Hyphanet. And no, IPFS is not an option because it's generally a meme, and is pull-based, and have availability/longevity problems with metadata alone. iroh claims to be less of a meme, but I don't know if they fixed any of the big design (or rather lack of design) problems.

At the end of the day, people can live with GitHub/GitLab/... going down for a few minutes every other week, or 1-2 hours every other month, as the benefits outweigh the occasional inconvenience by a big margin.

And git itself is distributed anyway. So it's not like anyone was cut from committing work locally or pushing commits to a mirror.

I guess waiting on CI runs would be the most relevant inconvenience. But that's not a distributable part of any service/implementation that exists, or can exist without being quickly gravely abused.

Definitely don't use axum, which provides a simple interface for routes by using derived traits. Their release cycle is way shorter, which makes them more dangerous, and they're part of the same github user as tokio, which means they're shilling their own product.

this but (semi)-unironucally

Good.

Can you formulate your question better, with a minimal example and properly formatted code?

If you're using an LLM to "learn", stop. Otherwise, I don't understand what lazy_static has to do with anything.

It's hard to tell what you're asking. But maybe you're confused because println! (it's a macro btw) expands to code that involves format_args! which is a compiler built-in that doesn't take ownership of the token expressions that get passed to it. Notice how the bottom of the format_args! page has this to say:

Lifetime limitation

Except when no formatting arguments are used, the produced fmt::Arguments value borrows temporary values, which means it can only be used within the same expression and cannot be stored for later use. This is a known limitation, see #92698.

So, it's kind of a feature and a limitation at the same time.

Ask yourself:

• Where do these stats come from?
• What do they actually measure?
• How can the total number of all Desktop Linux users or devices be known to anyone?

​
The fact of the matter is, none of these stats actually measure the number of users. Most of them are just totally flawed guestimates based on what is often limited web analytics data collected by them.

In fact, not even the developers of a single distribution can guess the number of people/devices using/running that specific distribution. A distribution like Debian for example has mirrors, and mirrors to some mirrors, and maybe even mirrors to some mirrors to some mirrors. So if Debian developers can't possibly know the number of Debian users, do you think OP's site knows the total number of Desktop Linux users?

And let's not get into the fact that the limited data they collect itself is not even reliable. View desktop site on your Android phone's browser. Congratulations! Now you're a desktop Linux user. No special user-agent spoofing add-on needed. You're even running X11. Good choice not following the Wayland fad too soon.