Google et al. run crawlers primarily to populate their search engines. This is a net positive for those whose sites get scraped, because when they appear in a search engine they get more traffic, more page views, more ad revenue.
This is not necessarily true. Google’s instant answers are designed to use the content from websites to answer searcher’s questions without actually leading them to the website. Whether you’re trying to find the definition for the word, the year a movie came out, or a recipe, Google will take the information they’ve scraped from a website and present it on their page with a link to the website. Their hope is that the information will be useful enough that the searcher never needs to leave the search engine.
This might be useful for searchers, but it doesn’t help the sites much. This is one of the reasons news companies attempted to take action against Google a few years ago. I think a search engine should provide some useful utilities, but not try to replace the sites they’re ostensibly attempting to connect users to. Not all search engines are like this, but Google is.
I don’t really have a least favorite distribution. I mean, I guess between Fedora, Ubuntu, Debian, Mint, openSUSE, Manjaro, and Gentoo, the least appealing choices to me are Manjaro and Gentoo. Manjaro is just Arch but worse, because the packages are old and likely to cause incompatibilities with AUR packages that need really up-to-date system packages, and I…don’t trust the maintainers to have configured everything better than I could have myself. Just based on history.
Debian has ancient packages. That’s the only reason. I’d just end up using Flatpak packages or compiling from source.
Any other distribution I could use, including Gentoo, but Arch is the sweet spot for me.
That would be the logical conclusion, but I believe Debian uses the old version for years after it’s unsupported and might backport security fixes depending on how severe they are. Either way, I personally wouldn’t trust Debian or Ubuntu to properly fix security issues with a program (or in this case, programming language) that they do not actively develop or maintain themselves.
This is good to know. I’m more into rolling releases like Arch, Fedora, and openSUSE anyway, so the latest Ubuntu’s packages tend to be a bit old for me anyway.
The main package I was thinking of was the kernel. I saw the recent Linux Experiment video by Nick and they were using a kernel version (6.1?) that was no longer supported nor an LTS.
I’m a newbie programmer (and have been for quite a few years), but I’ve recently started trying to build useful programs. They’re small ones (under 1000 lines of code), but they accomplish the general task well enough. I’m also really busy, so as much as I like learning this stuff, I don’t have a lot of time to dedicate to it. The first program, which was 300 lines of code, took me about a week to build. I did it all myself in Python. It was a really good learning experience. I learned everything from how to read technical specifications to how to package the program for others to easily install.
The second program I built was about 500 lines of code, a little smaller in scope, and prototyped entirely in ChatGPT. I needed to get this done in a weekend, and so I got it done in 6 hours. It used SQLite and a lot of database queries that I didn’t know much about before starting the project, which surely would have taken hours to research. I spent about 4 hours fixing the things ChatGPT screwed up myself. I think I still learned a lot from the project, though I obviously would have learned more if I had to do it myself. One thing I asked it to do was to generate a man page, because I don’t know Groff. I was able to improve it afterward by glancing at the Groff docs, and I’m pretty happy with it. I still have yet to write a man page for the first program, despite wanting to do it over a year ago.
I was not particularly concerned about my programs being used as training data because they used a free license anyway. LLMs seem great for doing the work you don’t want to do, or don’t want to do right now. In a completely unrelated example, I sometimes ask ChatGPT to generate names for countries/continents because I really don’t care that much about that stuff in my story. The ones it comes up with are a lot better than any half-assed stuff I could have thought of, which probably says more about me than anything else.
On the other hand, I really don’t like how LLMs seem to be mainly controlled by large corporations. Most don’t even meet the open source definition, but even if they did, they’re not something a much smaller business can run. I almost want to reject LLMs for that reason on principle. I think we’re also likely to see a dramatic increase in pricing and enshittification in the next few years, once the excitement dies down. I want to avoid becoming dependent on this stuff, so I don’t use it much.
I think LLMs would be great for automating a lot of the junk work away, as you say. The problem I see is they aren’t reliable, and reliability is a crucial aspect of automation. You never really know what you’re going to get out of an LLM. Despite that, they’ll probably save you time anyway.
I’m no expert, but neither is most of the workforce (although kernel work is, again, much more in the expert realm).
I think experts are the ones who would benefit from LLMs the most, despite LLMs consistently producing average work in my experience. They know enough to tell when it’s wrong, and they’re not so close to the code that they miss the obvious. For years, translators have been using machine translation tools to speed up their work, basically relegating them to being translation checkers. Of course, you’d probably see a lot of this with companies that contract translators at pitiful rates per word who need to work really hard to get decent pay. Which means the company now expects everyone to perform at that level, which means everyone needs to use machine translation tools to keep up, which means efficiency is prioritized over quality.
This is a very different scenario to kernel work. Translation has kind of been like that for a while from what I know, so LLMs are just the latest thing to exacerbate the issues.
I’m still pretty undecided on where I fall on the issue of LLMs. Ugh, nothing in life can ever be simple. Sorry for jumping all over the place, lol. That’s why I would have been interested in Linus Torvalds’ opinion :)
GNOME changed the way I used desktops. Dolphin changed the way I used file managers.
I always set Nautilus to use one-click behavior, but it doesn’t have handles like Dolphin does. And Dolphin has a built-in terminal. And other niceties. I like Nautilus too. I think both desktops have some good ideas and I like to bring some KDE ideas over to GNOME and vice versa.
But if there’s one thing I’m sure of, it’s that GNOME is much better designed than macOS.
Nope. However, UnityX, a prototype desktop environment (which will be available as a variant of Unity once ready), will include Wayland support.
I realize the name was likely chosen for completely unrelated reasons, but I can’t stop laughing about UnityX being the only variant of Unity with Wayland support.