apt_install_coffee

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Did the citizens of that country take the loan? No

Did they benefit at all from the loan? No

Did the world bank make any effort to ensure the above were answered 'yes'? No

When you make a leveraged loan are you supposed to be guaranteed that the it was risk free? No

If leveraged loans could be made risk-free 'breal your legs' style the way the world bank does to countries, banks would be offering loans to every punter who wanted to bet on the dogs.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

If it's a G502/702, they've got a very fucky scroll wheel & middle click; it's actually a lemon, but since nothing else works with the wireless pads they're the only options.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Kernel modules don't have to be open source provided they follow certain rules like not using gpl only symbols. This is the same reason you can use an NVIDIA driver.

Its not enforced so much by law as what the fsf and Linux foundation can prove and are willing to pursue; going after a company that size is expensive, especially when they're a Linux foundation partner. A lot of major Linux foundation partners are actively breaking the GPL.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Both Intel and AMD invest a lot into open source drivers, firmware and userspace applications, but also due to the nature of X86_64's UEFI, a lot of the proprietary crap is loaded in ROM on the motherboard, and as microcode.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I work with SoC suppliers, including Qualcomm and can confirm; you need to sign an NDA to get a highly patched old orphaned kernel, often with drivers that are provided only as precompiled binaries, preventing you updating the kernel yourself.

If you want that source code, you need to also pay a lot of money yearly to be a Qualcomm partner and even then you still might not have access to the sources for all the binaries you use. Even when you do get the sources, don't expect them to be updated for new kernel compatibility; you've gotta do that yourself.

Many other manufacturers do this as well, but few are as bad. The environment is getting better, but it seems to be a feature that many large manufacturers feel they can live without.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

No, I'm saying that when people run into strange bugs, sometimes they put together an issue (like the person behind cve-rs), and sometimes they quietly work around it because they're busy.

Seeing as I don't often trawl through issues on the language git, neither really involve notifying me specifically.

My lack of an anecdote does not equate to anecdotal evidence of no issue, just that I haven't met every rust developer.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Yes, the problems rust is solving are already solved under different constraints. This is not a spicy take.

The world isn't clamoring to turn a go app into rust specifically for the memory safety they both enjoy.

Systems applications are still almost exclusively written in C & C++, and they absolutely do run into memory bugs. All the time. I work with C almost exclusively for my day job (with shell and rust interspersed), and while tried and tested C programs have far fewer memory bugs than when they were first made, that means the bugs you do find are by their nature more painful to diagnose. Eliminating a whole class of problems in-language is absolutely worth the hype.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (4 children)

If someone did, why would I hear of it?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago (6 children)

The code used in cve-rs is not that complicated, and it's not out of the realm of possibility that somebody would use lifetimes like this if they had just enough knowledge to be dangerous.

I'm as much a rust evangelist as the next guy, but part of having excellent guard rails is loudly pointing out subtle breakages that can cause hard to diagnose issues.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Typically no, the top two PCIE x16 slots are normally directly to the CPU, though when both are plugged in they will drop down to both being x8 connectivity.

Any PCIE x4 or X1 are off the chipset, as well as some IO, and any third or fourth x16 slots.

So yes, motherboards typically do implement more IO connectivity than can be used simultaneously, though they will try to avoid disabling USB ports or dropping their speed since regular customers will not understand why.

view more: next ›