people laughed at me for choosing debian. they asked why i chose to have ancient runes running in my computer

who’s laughing now?

i tried many different algorithms at the time, but it didn’t really matter. my laptop would always, eventually, lag and get pretty hot and I would check the task manager and sure enough there were the btrfs compression proccesses hogging the cpu

the less code the better because the more code the higher the maintenance burden

keeping code around isn’t free. it makes refactoring harder, it makes compilation times longer, it makes the kernel larger, it makes it harder to guarantee device compatibility. that’s all part of maintaining software, but it makes no sense to waste work maintaining shit noone is using, work that could’ve been used to implement new features and/or maintain existing code that’s actually in use

what the kernel is doing is the correct approach. unless they’re sure there’s someone using the thing: old, unmaintained code = bin

ntfs compression

btrfs compression was really cpu-heavy last time i tried it. ntfs compression just worked with little hassle

the less code the better

firefox is larger and more fast-paced

you’re confusing importance with complexity

openssl is a vital part of the web, but it is a small tool

pale moon leverages the hundreds of thousands of person-hours put into firefox up until the fork. the work they put on their original code is negligible in comparison

there is literally no project led by unpaid volunteers that’s able to output the amount of work necessary to maintain a browser and keep it up to date with web standards, let alone add new features

firefox has been following kde’s colors for a good while now

what distro are you using that updates breaking the system are an expected (and not an exceptional) scenario?

you can, but from what i heard, maybe you shouldn’t, bc openzfs is much more unreliable than true zfs

oh wow, that’s crazy. thanks for the info, but it’s a little fucked up that btrfs can make a memory failure cause a filesystem corruption

it doesn’t matter if his apology is sincere or not, bc the point is not to make him sincerely repent from his sins. the point is ensuring he will subject himself to the kernel guidelines whether he likes it or not. a public apology means “regardless of how right i think i am, i will now follow the rules of the house”

simple as

power-playing Kent into submission

isn’t the issue that kent thinks the kernel guidelines don’t apply to him because he’s just that good? unless i’m missing something, why should we just let him try to trample the kernel guidelines without even asking for an apology?

sorry, i love plasma and i’d use it over gnome any day of the week, but there are still a ton of papercuts that make me feel uneasy about recommending it to anyone else. gnome is boring and it personally slows me down, but i feel safer setting up a corporate workstaion with gnome knowing the user won’t break something by accident

i’ve been meaning to try it, but i installed freebsd to an ufs partition instead of zfs because ufs was marked by default in the installer 🤦

not sure what the relation would be. my ram is fine afaik

honestly, i do get the appeal of btrfs, which is why i wanted to try it out one more time. but i feel i can’t trust it if it is really that fault intolerant. ext4 might not have as many features as btrfs, but it is more lenient and more predictable

(also, recovering from update failures should be the job of the package system imo)

i still prefer plasma over gnome, but my sorta controversial opinion on the matter is that gnome 3 was way better than gnome 2. gnome 2 was boring, ugly, using it felt like a chore and frankly not much simpler than kde at the time. gnome 3 tried to create something new and unique and i have huge respect of them for that. it was also much, much more pleasant to use than its predecessor. but it still isn’t better than plasma. the only time in my opinion that gnome was a preferable option to kde was during the early kde 4 dark ages, which was a necessary transition, but it was terrible regardless

tl;dr gnome >=3 still isn’t better than plasma, but it was a step in the right direction bc gnome 2 was way worse

as i said, maybe that’s the ideal for industrial/business applications (e.g. servers, remote storage) where the cost of replacing disks due to failure is already accounted for and the company has a process ready and pristine data integrity is of utmost importance, but for home use, reliability of the hardware you do have right now is more important than perfect data integrity, because i want to be as confident as possible that my system is going to boot up next time i turn it on. in my experience, i’ve never had any major data loss in ext4 due to hardware malfunction. also, most files on a filesystem are replaceable anyway (especially the system files), so it makes even less sense to install your system on a btrfs drive from that perspective.

what you’re saying me is basically “btrfs should never be advised for home use”

guidelines are for the sheeple