I think that’s just how every Rust developer learns Rust.

Preferably taxpayers. Not that that part of the analogy relates to Ubuntu.

Yeah, but Canonical locks security patches behind payment or signup, not just support.

Seems really dodgy to me making your business model holding security features hostage for either money or sign-ups, honestly.

Kindof like charging people for vaccines against deadly diseases or something.

But then again, my craw may be extra susceptible to sticking when it comes to such things.

If you’re not paying for the product, then you’re the product.

(I don’t believe the above quote to be absolutely true, but I’m not sure what motivation Canonical could have to lock some features of the OS behind a free account except $$$.)

Great question! Not really my area of expertise, but probably there are at least a couple of possible avenues. One is decompilation and/or disassembly and static analysis. (Basically use automated tools to reconstruct the original source code as best it can and then read that imperfect reconstruction of the source code to figure out what it does.) Another is isolating it (“air gap” – no network or connectivity to anything you care about) so you’re sure it can’t do any damage and running it with tools that record/report everything it does. (On Linux, one could use strace and/or GDB. On Mac, dtrace. Not sure what the equivalent is for Windows programs running on Windows.)

Actually, I guess another option could be to set up an isolated system, record a whole bunch of information about it before running the .exe then after running the .exe, examine it to see what you can find on the filesystem or in the registry or in RAM or whatever that might have changed. It wouldn’t catch everything, though. Like if it made a network connection or something but didn’t actually change anything on the filesystem, it might not leave any traces.

Whatever the case, it’d probably require some specialized tools and expertise. But it’d be an interesting project.

Are you kidding? Link is by far the most broken character. That grab and throw your opponent into the pit behind you trick is total BS. As is the upswipe and shoot with an arrow before they hit the ground move. You can just mop the floor against any non-Link character so easily. And that’s true whether both players are button mashing or both investing in learning the combos. (And to a surprising extent if the Link player is a button masher and the opponent is “good”.)

And I say that as the douchebag who always played as Link. My record is 63 to 3 in one afternoon against a player who played/practiced just as much as I did and his character of choice was Nightmare. He knew the juggling combos and all just like I did, but Link is just broken beyond belief.

Just like Kirby in Super Smash Brothers 64. (They nerfed Kirby a good amount in later Smash Brothers installments.)

So I was going to go find the Download link for the Linux version of Edge to post as a joke, right?

So I googled (actually duckduckgo’d) “microsoft edge” and clicked one of the first couple of links that looked like it was probably the right place to go.

And was presented with this modal:

I’m visiting that page from Firefox in Arch Linux on a Raspberry Pi 4.

Admittedly I’m running a user agent switcher because otherwise I get the mobile version of a lot of sites, but it’s still funny to me. I like being able to say “the fuck it is.”

Aliases are for the weak. Memorize and type out the whole one-liner, wuss.

“I don’t remember how to do that. Let me go check my .bashrc.” Literal clowning, smh.

Can we not with the AI-generated images?

Nvidia used to be the easy way to go. The open-source Nouveau driver lacked functionality. The official Nvidia driver was proprietary but worked well. (Though the Radeon drivers were proprietary at the time too. And Intel graphics hardware was always poor.)

Wild how things turn around.

'Bout time.

- a Go fan.

You’re eating the onion. I could see some government agency deciding that they as an agency would standardize on tabs, though even that would be a stretch. But not the White House.

Anyone else here have to endure IBM AS/400 at their workplace?

Clearly OP’s got internet access some-which-how.

Whole installation? I’d have thought that was just after upgrading LibreOffice.

Get a room you two.

I use Fedarcha, BTW.

!lostlemmings@lemmy.world ?

Oh boy, I get to argue with you again.

This is way off topic for this thread (sorry to OP), but my take is that “good” (or, being more precise, perhaps something like “pro-social and self-caring” is a better way to put it) is the “natural” way for humans to be and for humans to do “bad” (“antisocial and/or self-destructive”, perhaps?) things needs a reason or explanation in a way that people not doing “bad” things doesn’t. (As opposed to an opposite view that people are evil and require something (authority, religion, whatever) to make them do good.)

My point in bringing it up in that other thread was that one didn’t necessarily have to believe that “Stallman is bad” to believe he shouldn’t have been accepted back into a position of authority at the FSF. Even if he’s a “saint,” giving him a position of authority in the FSF after everything he’s said is very problematic. (Harms the Free Software movement’s reputation, excludes people, sends an unfortunate message, etc.) It can absolutely be appropriate for an organization to exclude/remove/dethrone/etc people (or refuse to take them back) for bad behavior or for expressing reprehensible opinions especially if doing otherwise sends a message that the organization approves of the behavior or speech. (And I don’t feel like Stallman later publicly changing his opinions is enough to make his return to the FSF not be seen as endorsement of his previously-stated opinions.)

In this thread, the person I’m responding to used the term “good person” and I went with it rather than going into something irrelevant to the current discussion. With my previous comment in this thread, I mean that if you’re going to take sides, you shouldn’t put Stallman and the FSF on opposite sides and that the opposite side that is (at least from everything that I know about things at the moment and don’t expect anything to change) worth aligning yourself with is SFC, FSFE, and Bradley Kuhn. (And I’m sure there are plenty of others in the Free Software movement who are also worth aligning yourself with, but these are people and organizations that are leaders in the movement and (more) well known (than most, though that’s not saying much – there aren’t many in the movement who are well known like Stallman, Moglen, and Kuhn.))

If I knew you were going to continue this argument in this thread, I would probably have put “good guy” and “bad guy” in quotes (like I did “saint” a couple of paragraphs back. Sometimes people use convenient shorthands.) But going into all of the above wasn’t really relevant to this conversation. (Until your response, that is.)

At this point, I doubt there’d be benefit to continuing this conversation here in this thread. If you want to respond again, I guess knock yourself out, but I don’t intend to respond here again.