This is so rude. You've done nothing for the guy (neither have I), and have probably used and benefited from his work (that we did not pay for) in some way - and then to single him out and ridicule him? There's an actual human on the other side there...
It’s a tool. It’s useful to figure out if something you’re running is IO-bound or CPU-bound. It also shows per-core load, which is useful for visualizing multi-threaded performance.
Now, seriously. Microsoft’s devs literally only do something if their boss tells them to, and the boss only cares about money. The support teams only know chkdsk and reboot.
On the topic of Microsoft support, I hate how useless support boards are. They’re always responding with the same template answers describing the exact steps the asker clearly stated they’ve already done with no results. Microsoft is far from alone in this, but I just wanted to rant a bit.
I wonder if they consulted Plasma devs about it. Sure they said that they aim to make Wayland ready for Plasma 6, but it didn't sound like it was an actual plan for 6.0. After all they got their hands full with Qt 6 porting, and there are still major roadblocks with completing Wayland support, while 6.0 is about to have its alpha release already.
Knowing Fedora devs however, I suspect they didn't. They switched to Plasma Wayland by default several Fedora releases ago, when it was in no way ready. I guess I will switch to a different distro when this time comes.
Yeah, as usual the opinionated crew are making something that one may even like feel like it’s forced down everyone’s throat (see: systemd, snap…) and making everything worse. I don’t see how any Linux desktop distro worth its salt can get by ignoring 90% of the PC GPU market share and essentially forcing them into an inferior desktop experience for pure ideology’s sake, and I LIKE Wayland. I even put up with all its quirks in a particularly quirky implementation (KWin). But this ain’t it if you want users to use your OS.
Having one program (process) talk to another is dangerous. Think of a stranger trying to come over to me and deliver a message. There’s no way I can guarantee that he isn’t planning to stab me as soon as he sees me.
That’s why we have special mechanisms for programs talking to other programs. Instead of having the stranger deliver the message directly to me, our mutual friend Bob (IPC Library, binder in this case) acts as an intermediary. This way at least I can’t be “directly” stabbed.
What’s preventing the stranger from convincing Bob to stab me? Not much (except for Bob’s own ethics/programming)
To work around this, we have designed programming languages (rust) that don’t work if there’s a possibility of it being corrupted (I would add “at least superficially”, but that’s not the main topic here). Bob was trained by the CIA in anti-brainwashing techniques. It’s really hard to convince Bob to stab me. That’s why it’s such a big deal. We now have a way of delivering messages between two programs that is much safer than before.
The only problem is that the CIA anti-brainwashing techniques (rust) tend to make people slow. So we deliver messages less efficiently than before. Good news is in this case we managed to make Bob almost as fast as before, so we don’t lose our own much while gaining additional security. The people who checked on Bob even made sure to have Bob do the exact same thing as before when delivering messages (using RB Trees), hence this evidence is most likely credible.
linux
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.