I would travel back in time and make Acorn RISC OS go mainstream. It’s a light OS with a full desktop environment, capable of playing video and rendering anti-aliased fonts, that boots all from ROM and runs on an 8MHz ARM CPU and 512 KB RAM.

I said “go back in time” because I’m not sure how advanced it is compared to modern systems, it’s single-user only and has cooperative multitasking, instead of preemptive.

I think OpenShell is alive, it’s a fork of Classic Shell

Must be bots generating the posts, the corporates love AI

Reminds me of these

Comments in Netscape when it became open source

Fisher-Price actually has solidity to it. I’d take that over these pseudomagical plastic sticky notes.

People called Windows XP “Fisher-Price”!

RTFF? What’s a fanual?

I am not the person who said “C++ has rotted their brain”. I have not expressed a similar sentiment. I have never said that “borrow checker fixes all”, in fact I said that it will not magically fix everything.

And if I want a bug-free code, I will use same tool as ever: my brain

Is your brain infallible?

The strategy is not to 100% eliminate every bug in existence or theory, bugs are inevitable. The strategy is Swiss cheese security.

Something is better than nothing. Therefore (brain + something) > (brain + nothing). As long as “something” works to prevent bugs, to any extent, it will result in fewer bugs.

It’s not a “magic pill”, it’s another tool. We’re not saying that it will magically fix everything, it will just make certain types of errors less probable.

If you want bug-free code, will you (A) use a tool that makes it easier, or (B) use the same tool as before?

“Skill issue” is not an answer.

Like the fox?

Apt is written in more C++ than C, so it would be apt to select a language that is similar.

What does this mean for the end-user? By how they worded it…

the APT packaging tool next year will begin requiring a Rust compiler

it seems like you need a Rust compiler as a dependency for simply having Apt installed on your system.

Debian and most distros based on it do not even install a C++ compiler by default, and apt is mostly written in C++.

Does that really have the same results as the example scenario I described? How would you even access the unnamed struct, since it is unnamed?

What’s the point of this? If you have a struct within a struct, you probably want them to nest. The -fms-extensions will un-nest them, which is not what you mean.

// If I type this:
struct test {
        int a;
        struct test2 {
                char b;
                float c;
        };
        double d;
};

struct test my_test;

// I want this to happen:
my_test.test2.b = 'x'; //assigning the members of the nested struct
my_test.test2.c = 3.141; //this will work
printf("%f", my_test.c); //this will NOT work since c is a property of test2

Time to chew the cartridge?

I sense a fork coming

From security agencies, presumably…

Got me? No!

Security agencies create encryption for their own usage. This means they want it to be mathematically as strong as possible, to protect their secrets from enemy security agencies. Why would they backdoor their own protection system?

They’ll just go through the side door instead.

You’re in luck, it’s a designated neutral editor

2.1 is the most common version, but it’s way out of date. The current standardized version is 9.6.0.

This is KDE, there are always dragons

The coolest I’ve seen? Artix of course!

(There’s also Kali, but it’s disqualified because A: not a daily driver distro, and B: dragons are automatically the coolest thing ever)

“The quieter you become, the more you are able to hear”

(don’t know why it’s green)