• 3 Posts
  • 74 Comments
Joined 3 months ago
cake
Cake day: September 5th, 2024

help-circle

  • the less code the better because the more code the higher the maintenance burden

    keeping code around isn’t free. it makes refactoring harder, it makes compilation times longer, it makes the kernel larger, it makes it harder to guarantee device compatibility. that’s all part of maintaining software, but it makes no sense to waste work maintaining shit noone is using, work that could’ve been used to implement new features and/or maintain existing code that’s actually in use

    what the kernel is doing is the correct approach. unless they’re sure there’s someone using the thing: old, unmaintained code = bin











  • beleza pura@lemmy.eco.brtoLinux@lemmy.mlWhat now as a bcachefs user?
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    it doesn’t matter if his apology is sincere or not, bc the point is not to make him sincerely repent from his sins. the point is ensuring he will subject himself to the kernel guidelines whether he likes it or not. a public apology means “regardless of how right i think i am, i will now follow the rules of the house”

    simple as







  • i still prefer plasma over gnome, but my sorta controversial opinion on the matter is that gnome 3 was way better than gnome 2. gnome 2 was boring, ugly, using it felt like a chore and frankly not much simpler than kde at the time. gnome 3 tried to create something new and unique and i have huge respect of them for that. it was also much, much more pleasant to use than its predecessor. but it still isn’t better than plasma. the only time in my opinion that gnome was a preferable option to kde was during the early kde 4 dark ages, which was a necessary transition, but it was terrible regardless

    tl;dr gnome >=3 still isn’t better than plasma, but it was a step in the right direction bc gnome 2 was way worse


  • as i said, maybe that’s the ideal for industrial/business applications (e.g. servers, remote storage) where the cost of replacing disks due to failure is already accounted for and the company has a process ready and pristine data integrity is of utmost importance, but for home use, reliability of the hardware you do have right now is more important than perfect data integrity, because i want to be as confident as possible that my system is going to boot up next time i turn it on. in my experience, i’ve never had any major data loss in ext4 due to hardware malfunction. also, most files on a filesystem are replaceable anyway (especially the system files), so it makes even less sense to install your system on a btrfs drive from that perspective.

    what you’re saying me is basically “btrfs should never be advised for home use”