nous

I don't think data races are generally considered a memory safety issue. And a lot of languages do not do much to prevent them but are still widely considered memory safe.

How are they not memory safe in a multi-threadded context?

You missed an important part of that quote:

Send/receive of subvolume changes, efficient incremental filesystem mirroring and backup

This is explicitly talking about a different feature that can incrementally sending changes to the filesystem to another filesystem as a backup. Not at all about how snapshots work.

Linux makes up exactly one package on a so-called Linux system.

True, it was a poor proxy for what I really meant - which was the amount of code that my system runs. Linux as a project is growing quite fast these days and is getting bigger and bigger. But the number of GNU tools I use (and thus their code that I use) is growing smaller and smaller.

Musl, systemd, Freedesktop, etc. were never OS projects. GNU and Linux are OSes.

What the hell makes a project an OS project? What even is an OS - that is a debate as old as computers. What makes GNU more of an OS than systemd or musl or anything else? GNU is not a complete OS on its own. It has failed to meet that goal for decades. Is it just because it claims that title? Are the other projects just not ambitious enough? Hell why are we not raising pitchforks at GNU for being a all encompassing project that wants to consume everything like everyone complains systemd is trying to do?

The lines drawn here are meaningless and arbitrary. GNU is no more important to my systems as any other project mentioned here and makes up no more of my system then they do. I don't see why so many are obsessed with singling out GNU and explicitly excluding everything else. It is a pointless distinction created by a guy that was pissy that his pet project was not getting the attention he thought it deserved.

Not sure I would call them incremental. Nor each snapshot (or even the first) being a clone of the system (which is contradictory to being incremental).

All snapshots 'contain' all data relevant to that snapshot. It is just that multiple snapshots can point to the same underlying block of data and when new block of data is written it is copied to a new location so old snapshots can still see the old blocks of data but newer ones see the newer blocks. If you delete a snapshot that is the only thing pointing to some blocks then those blocks are now considered free and can be overwritten. But other blocks that still have other snapshots pointing to them will remain.

So you can delete any snapshot you want and no other snapshots needs to change or incorporate any other changes - they all already point to all the data they need.

Why not also recognize systemd, or musl, or kde or gnome or any of the other millions of non GNU packages that are needed to make up a complete OS.

Fuck if I am going to rattle off all my installed packages every time I want to mention what OS I am running. Linux is good enough. People know what you mean when you say it. And these days GNU makes up less and less of the core packages that most distros run anymore.

Also the copy pasta that this all stems from explicitly calls out eliminating nonfree programs which most popular distros do not do these days:

Making a free GNU/Linux distribution is not just a matter of eliminating various nonfree programs. Nowadays, the usual version of Linux contains nonfree programs too. These programs are intended to be loaded into I/O devices when the system starts, and they are included, as long series of numbers, in the “source code” of Linux. Thus, maintaining free GNU/Linux distributions now entails maintaining a free version of Linux too.

And they even link to a vanishingly small number of approved free GNU/Linux distros. Of which non of the mainstream distros are listed. So can we really label anything not on that list as GNU/Linux?

Not sure this type of thing is useful to a broader audience. It is specifically for those that own chisels and/or planes to help with setting things up for sharpening. Anyone in that space who owns a honing guide and set of sharping stones will find it fairly obvious how this functions from the given details and pictures. For anyone that wants to sharpen a chisel or plane blade and does not yet know how there are a lot of guides out there that will go over those details where this device is only one small optional part of the picture - at which point the intent for this device becomes more obvious.

It is about WPEngine not contributing enough back to Wordpress, in terms of development effort or money. Apparently the trademark is the only legal grounds they have to go after WPEngine to try and get them to contribute back more.

If the trademark is indeed on the wordpress.org foundation and not the wordpress.com company, I didn’t think that’s a fair argument.

It is but the trademark is licensed to Automattic which handles all further commercial sub-licensing. And the CEO of Automattic sits on the board of the workpress foundation and is the creator of wordpress itself.

I don’t think either is a cancer to the FOSS Wordpress ecosystem. Both seem to give back.

I believe that this all started as the Automattic CEO did not think that WPEngine was contributing enough back to the wordpress ecosystem. Even after years of attempts to negotiate this. Seems he gave up trying and went after them for trademark rules as that was the only real leaver he had to pull. Since there is no obligation for WPEngine to contribute back to wordpress directly.

WPEngine using the Wordpress trademark makes me think they’re using Wordpress

Apparently this is contentious enough to be disputed in court not everyone thinks this and there are enough people that are confused over the matter that Automattic believe they can prove a trademark volition in court.

Lots more details in this interview with automattic CEO.

Dont know whos right here. Probably both sides are wrong to some degree. But worth hearing both sides of the argument before making a decision.

So, new plants were green lit on the promise of some carbon capture and storage technology that is yet to be proven. And companies will be given tax payer funds for this project to invest in these unproven technologies.

I bet that most of that money will line the pockets of some rich twat with a token effort being made on actual research - then they will either claim it is too hard or too expensive to actually do or will implement something so cheap and crude as to basically be pointless but makes it look like they are doing something. Then they will build the plants anyway and carbon emissions will be basically the same as any other plant of that type.

I don't think that “intermediary authorities” and “peer review” are the problem here nor will they completely eliminate disinformation and conspiracy theories on the internet. Getting rid of them does not help at all with those goals though. The big problem with publishers ATM is the closed access and processes that go on.

IMO places like Open Science Journal and PLOS are vastly better and attempting to solve the issues with the current closed and restrictive publishing models.