atzanteol

Computers are not a good choice for "regular users". Get them a locked-down iPhone and be done with it.

What you are describing is not a situation unique to Linux - or even Windows. "Software is hard and it sometimes breaks". My Windows 11 laptop that I use for work and to which I have made exactly zero modifications sometimes doesn't recognize when I've connected external speakers. And I can't disable hyper-v despite following all of the instructions. This is a corporate provisioned and managed system and simple stuff just doesn't work.

X% of all things have bugs. Your mistake is in thinking that the percentage that you're seeing are somehow special or related to the particular OS you're running at the time. The classic "the grass is greener" fallacy. This is pretty evidenced also by the fact that you're a classic "distro hopper" whose always looking for the perfect system rather than taking the time to understand the problems and deal with them as they come.

Billions of programs worked perfectly fine today.

Cynicism is easy, but not helpful.

I'd not heard of that before, thanks!

You’re saying that the complaint is wrong because the author doesn’t know the history

That's not at all what he said. He literally even said "He’s not wrong in principle."

If you don't understand the history of why something is the way it is you can't fix it. You can suggest your new "perfectly secured web site" but if Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Firefox, Apple, etc. don't agree on your new protocol then there's going to be exactly 1 person using it.

This is true of all languages.

That's fair. Debian does need to be extra careful given their position in the OS chain.

The thing is that, in C the API could be slightly different and you could get terrible crashes, for example because certain variables were freed at different times, etc. In Rust that is literally impossible to happen unless you (very extremely rarely) need to do something unsafe, which is explicitly marked as such and will never surprise you with an unexpected crash.

What? That's utter BS. Maybe the kernel devs aren't wrong about the "rust religion". Not every bug in C is a memory bug.

We're talking about a future version having regressions or different-than-expected behavior from what your application was built and tested on. I guarantee you that can happen with rust.

Rust programs will 99.999 % work if they can be compiled.

It's the same in C. Most programs don't test against the exact versions of most C libraries either. I'm not sure why he's so amazed at this.

"|>"? Why? That's such a difficult combination to type and it seems entirely unnecessary.

Possibly to confuse os detection. Not sure if it would be sufficient though.

Right - I'm just saying that it's super annoying that people point out times that llms have been wrong as though humans are never wrong, or even aren't wrong frequently.

Does Donald Trump understand how the ocean works?

No.

Does Donald Trump understand how ______ works?

Also no.