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

gobolinux

it’s main feature is that it completely redefines the system’s root directory structure. the only reason i even know it exists is because i’m friends with one of the creators

what i mean by production is “not randomly breaking because it’s feature freeze time and now i have to reinstall everything”. i assure you it’s not a high bar

sorry if i sound a little annoying about this, it’s just that i’ve seen so many people recommending debian testing as if it’s just a different flavor of debian for people who want a more up-to-date system and are willing to deal with a little instability, but it is not that. debian testing is made exclusively for testing debian. it is not made for daily driving. i’ve had so many issues with debian systems in my lab which i later found out were caused by someone “upgrading” the system to testing bc they heard debian testing is the daily driving version and debian stable is just for servers that need 99.9% uptime

honestly, you’d be better off using sid rather than testing, since it’s rolling release

as for gimp, they can just use pinning to upgrade gimp exclusively. they can also use backports. no need to upgrade the whole system

never run debian testing for production use

never run debian testing for production use

debian testing is not fit for production use

the point is? life sucks? i don’t get it

porque dói encarar a própria impotência

também conhecido como AI dentro

comentando só pra dizer que estou no aguardo de mais informações

identitarismo é a minha pica, mas eu confesso que não vejo mais tanto webcomunista reclamando de identitarismo. o último quadrinho tá falando de quem mesmo?

what

A diferença foi o tipo de manejo do solo realizado pelos assentados. Em vez de deixar a terra “pelada”, só com o plantio da estação, o assentamento tem uma cobertura vegetal rica. E, em vez de produzirem só um determinado tipo de produto, eles respeitam as épocas dos alimentos e fazem rotação de culturas

vou esfregar isso na cara de todo tonto que aparecer falando que o agro alimenta o brasil

o agro é tão fudido que até um negócio óbvio que a gente aprende na escola que é rotação de cultura eles não querem fazer porque eles tão pouco se lascando pra terra que eles exploram

quando eu tava interessado nisso, o que eu achei melhor custo/benefício, menos burocrático e mais fácil de usar foi o hetzner. tem gente que reclama que eles pedem documento, mas eu só precisei enviar minha cnh e eles aprovaram minha conta em uns 10 minutos

rust is a systems/low overhead programming language. really not much of a point comparing js/ts and rust, since js is much higher level. you should be comparing it with c, c++, zig, maybe nim, etc

you also imply it’s pointless to have a language geared towards performance because computers are better now, but 1) programs run on more than just personal computers and you wouldn’t run js in an embedded system and 2) just because your computer can put up with poor performance and resource waste doesn’t mean that it’s sensible to do so (hello electron)

also, rust does more than just cosmetic improvements. it adds a layer of statically guaranteed memory safety that no other commercially viable programming language that i know of has. even if its syntax looked like ancient eldritch runes, it would still be an attractive language. the fact that it manages to do more than other languages while still having a decent syntax is amazing

you can dislike rust if you want that’s fine but you don’t need to try to shit on it just bc it’s not your cup of tea

this is supposed to be one of those “take that, racist prick” stories. these are pretty common