Ive done a few of those, but they were all preparatory refractors, pulling out bits of code to turn them into standalone functions that are only used once because my next PR uses them, and then adding unit tests for those new functions. -100 or so lines of code, +300 or so when you take into account the new docstrings, etc.

(The secret to doing these preparatory refractors is to actually do them after writing the “next” PR so you’re not unnecessarily refactoring stuff you’re going to touch.)

So it doesn’t count as coding “from scratch” if you already know the language?

I don’t understand. That’s compatible with all my devices.

Interesting. I don’t use any of the compose tools, so I’ve not faced that. I find Podman works reliably in places where I can’t even get Docker to start working (such as RISC-V machines), but I also typically use podman for testing before deploying to k8s

I’m curious why you feel this way? I’m kinda the opposite — podman has features I use that Docker doesn’t.

No matter how niche the topic, there will always be at least one person willing to gatekeep it.

Thanks for reminding me that my back hurts.

How does this differ from mir, which is also a Wayland compositor with separate window managers?

The science_memes crosspoint has some interesting comments about the effectiveness

Idk what character or even what show.

I’m just making it clear that you don’t have any actual criticisms of this application and haven’t addressed it when people point out that:

• It’s fully offline (so your “services” claim is false)
• It’s GPLv3 licensed (so we can audit and verify what it’s doing)
• This is an opt-in accessibility feature (so it’s not being “pushed” on anyone)

You’re welcome to remain belligerent. I’m not here to change your mind.

That response, especially given that this is something that’s entirely offline and optional, is probably the closest we’re going to get to you admitting that you just want to be negative about this rather than actually having a criticism of it.

What do you think are the ulterior motives behind this GPLv3 licensed app? I think the ulterior motive is getting better accessibility tools so it’s easier to convince governments to use Ubuntu (and likely pay for extended support).

These days though you can just breakpoint()

They have been trying to work with the Flatpak people to make it a standard everyone could share. After half a decade of frustration I think they just gave up and decided to do it themselves.

I’m not the person you replied to, but I would love to have more ARM hardware for running tests on. A lot of what I write needs to be separately tested on each architecture.

The other LTS kernels didn’t get it until yesterday, and this thread has some good info about why: https://infosec.exchange/@wdormann/116489443704631952

Yes, both.

The architecture is really varied. You can get super cheap SoCs that are barely capable of running FreeRTOS, and you can get 100+ core beasts with EFI, PCIe, etc.

I’m pretty sure Microsoft has more people working on Linux stuff than Canonical has total employees.

Some Canonical employees are working on it but it’s not originally a Canonical project.