Of course. That bro is OG and gonna throw a chair atcha.

Aka “Windows subsystem for Linux”

Like any other convention, it’s not really a big deal either way. Fortran gets along just fine with 1-indexing.

Kill -9 is a command on Unix and Linux to send signal 9 (SIGKILL) to a process. That’s the version of kill that is the most reliable and has immediate effect.

Taskkill is a Windows command line program. I believe that taskkill /f uses the TerminateProcess() API. This is more forceful than the End Task button on the Task Manager. There is a different End Process button on the Task Manager that does use TerminateProcess().

TerminateProcess() is pretty reliable, but it doesn’t form part of the C signals stack on Windows like kill -9. So for instance, if you’re doing process control on Python, you need to use a special Windows-only API to access TerminateProcess().

Really I worked a project once that just had post-its stuck to the wall. It worked as well as Jira does.

It used to be that 640K oughta be enough for anyone.

The Linux software you can get as a regular user from your typical Linux distributions is absolutely not any more secure on average than your typical Windows software.

I say this as someone who writes application programs on both systems.

I think it’s really debatable whether the Linux kernel is really any more secure than the Windows NT kernel. Linux advocates have pushed the “many eyes, shallow bugs” line for a long time, but high profile lapses seem to really have put the lie to that.

If wasn’t full garbage collection in the spec. It was some infrastructure support in the spec that would make it easier to write garbage collectors in C++.

That’s what I’ve got (on Gentoo).

There’s also D. You could just upgrade to D.

When Fortran was created, each line was a separate punched card. The syntax made sense for that medium.

C was setup from the start for use on teletypes with fancy line editors like ed.

I think my mother played that star trek game on a time shared minicomputer.

Let us all remember that, at least back when it started, the establishment alternative to systemd was a product named after its original operating system, System V UNIX, which is a direct descendent of the original UNIX from AT&T. This sysvinit software used complicated shell scripts to manage daemons. Contrary to some opinions, these shell scripts were not “just working”; they were in fact a constant and major maintenance burden for Linux distributions. When I started on Linux at least, Debian had a suspiciously large fraction of bugs on init script breakages.

All this is to say that the new system, systemd, doesn’t have to be anywhere near perfect to be worth replacing sysvinit.

People argue that systemd is rejecting the “UNIX philosophy” of small tools that do one thing well. I argue that this UNIX philosophy is not some kind of universal good with no tradeoffs. It’s an engineering rule of thumb. There are always tradeoffs.

People argue that systemd is too much like Windows NT. I argue that Windows NT has at least a few good ideas in it. And if one of those ideas solves a problem that Linux has, Linux should use that idea.

Pay no attention to gconf, dconf, GSettings, or whatever else there is.

Or Fortran variables that collide with Fortran built-in functions.

Keep in mind that array subscript and function call are both () in Fortran.

And you can write more than six characters, but only the first six are recognized. So APFLWSAC and APFLWSAF are really the same variable.

And without namespaces, company policy reserves the first two characters for module prefix and Hungarian notation.

Some of those dialog boxes have not changed a bit since Windows 3.0.

Hint: if the non-free firmware is necessary to make most systems work, Debian is not actually all that close to being completely free.

It’s not git that’s complicated. The work is complicated. git is just one of the tools that programmers use to manage the complexity.

I also think that some people get too hung up on having a “clean” history, and trying to “fix” the history after it has already occurred. I usually have enough problems to worry about in the present, without also trying to worry about the past.