… To run jvm applications in the browser on wasm.

It’s pretty bad…

Neat.

You can tell it to be concise or terse.

It’s “being discovered”. You need context? Here: https://zerodayclock.com/#where-the-vulnerability-exposure-is-growing

By “bump” you mean the quadrupling of CVEs being addressed?

How is it misleading? All you’ve said is that releases have cves which is what the graph shows.

I sometimes wonder if some folks who hate AI use it poorly to show that it “fails half the time”.

The AI has access to roughly the same resources as you - if you can’t find docs or anything then it doesn’t either. So yeah - for incompletely documented APIs it will perform poorly. It isn’t magic (despite some marketing claims)…

But if you don’t want to spend 20 mins digging through AWS’s API docs to figure out how to list all EC2 instances and their volume mounts to tally disk usage or something it will produce workable code very quickly.

Is it painful? I’ve upgraded several versions without difficulty. “third party” repositories are problematic so be sure you follow the guidelines about disabling them.

Not that it’s critical to your point, but we’re you trying to argue that Wayland is monolithic?

No - but that it’s monolithic in a similar way that systemd is. Modular but integrated. The author seems to reject this form of modularity as a violation of “the code”.

No no no no - plugins are “tightly coupled” which this blog post claims is not the “UnIx PhIlOsOpHy”. They have to be completely independent applications swappable at will by the end user with different implementations!

You’re allowed to have programs whose job is to coordinate other programs.

Sure - it’s just not always a good idea. Would you want to copy your buffer to a dozen different applications applying filters to an image?

90% of his argument is just “UnIx PhIlOsOpHy” though. Or arguments (term used loosely) that are based on that. He keeps chanting “But systemd Is MoNoLiThIc” over and over as if that ended the discussion while handwaving away the same argument against Linux or Wayland. But somehow systemd is different. Systemd needs to be crap for some reason.

It turns out that system boot benefits from tightly integrated steps. Filesystem mounting can depend on network availability for example. Logging depends on filesystems to be mounted. The sub-systems are naturally inter-dependent. And service management and execution needs to know about all those things. Some services need networking, some need file systems, etc.

You match the design to the problem. You don’t pretend like the Unix Philosophy is some gold standard that everything must adhere to.

The Unix principle is the most over-rated design principle ever. It’s sole purpose is to be dragged out when somebody doesn’t like your application. Notably the systemd haters don’t levy the same complaint about Wayland…

It’s based on the idea of programs as “functions” that can be strung together like you often do with things like “cat /etc/passwd | grep user | tr ‘s/:/,/’” (cat put in there to trigger the right people). That’s a great philosophy for cli utilities. But it’s not universally applicable.

The goal is not to make things tiny but to make them “the right size.” You wouldn’t want to run 30 different applications to do what GIMP does and you shouldn’t have to.

And the idea of having dozens of viable replacements for different functions is not a Unix thing but pretty restricted to the Linux ecosystem. And it’s not like it was planned, it just happened because 12 people went out and wrote their own ntp daemons. There wasn’t really much benefit to it. “Oh boy, I can run a different ntpd… And half of them are partially implemented. Hooray?”

This is by far the most nuanced critique of systemd I’ve ever seen.

It’s the same bullshit everyone has always bitched about.

“everything I don’t like is fascist” is a thing. It’s why I hate the use of the term, even when it’s more appropriate.