Upon reading the article I think the title is just misleading.

What titles are not these days?

Not anymore because all the reason I mentioned. Has the experience change in recent years? Not likely. It is the same software as in other distros - just years out of date. That has not changed as the goals of these projects have not changed. They might be on newer versions then 10 years ago but they are still way behind more frequently updated distros - or at least will be very shortly. That is fundamentally how these enterprise distros work. Their target audience is businesses needing support, not lots of end users.

The big attraction towards these distros are the support that enterprise people will pay for - which you do not get with the free version. If you don’t mind older versions of things then it might be nice for you. If not then I would stay clear of them.

Older software is the most noticeable thing. Enterprise does not mean it is better - just that it is supported for a long time and they do that by not changing much on them. They are more designed for servers rather than workstations and generally not a great experiences unless you are running hundreds or thousands of them in an enterprise situation.

Professional just means payed for. What you are paying for is support in managing the systems, not a great user experience.

For home desktops it is far nicer to be on newer software rather than things that came out 5 to 10 years ago.

If that were the main goal why not just ban them from the extension store? Or why allow manifest v3 extensions to block requests at all? Ad blockers still work and this did not kill off any of them. Just forced them to change some of their functions. I don’t doubt the executive overlords are happy about the turmoil that this has done to ad blockers but they would be pissed if that was the only or main goal of this as there are still loads of effective adblockers about.

That is a more complex story then that. The manifest v3 changes primary give a lot of security and privacy changes that stop extensions from doing a lot of questionable things in the background on all your page you visit. But that does stop ad blockers from doing a lot of what they currently do - blocking in page elements and modifying the pages you visit. But it does not block them from blocking page requests so ad blockers like ublockorigin lite can still function in a more limited capacity to block ads.

I do think the teams outside of the chrome team are happy for this change - but I don’t think the chrome team set out to do this purely or even mainly to block ads.

Besides even if they did it does not change my argument - whom ever buys chrome will likely want to squeeze it for more money then google currently are doing and will likely do far worst things like including ads directly in the browser. Or trying to monetize it in some other way.

I would love it if chrome where maintained by some non-profit foundation. But how likely is that going to be from a court order sell off?

I would rather they split up google in other ways first.

TBH I am not sure this will end well at all. Google needs to e broken up but splitting off chrome? What will that achieve? Chrome does not directly make any money for Google really, they don’t sell it, they don’t sell ads in it, they don’t even collect much personal data though it. No where near as much as they really could if they really wanted to. Google have not been terrible at managing chrome or pushing as much profit out of it as they could.

Instead they are using it to create a good platform for all the rest of their services where they actually make money. So what will selling off this loss leader do for chrome? Most likely it will get bought up by someone else that will want to see a return on investment that wont be using it as a loss leader. Which I can very well see it getting en-shitified like everything else that is purely driven by profit.

Best case it is gets bought by a non profit foundation that can develop and take care of it - but lets be real, they wont have the money to out compete anyone wanting to buy it to make more money.

I personally don’t really trust google with my browser either - hence why I avoid chrome. But I would trust anyone seeking to buy it for profit far less and can very well see this as a overall negative if the wrong people buy it (which I see as more likely).

That being said, I don’t keep one in my car.

Now is the time to change that.

Um no. Containers are not just chroot. Chroot is a way to isolate or namespace the filesystem giving the process run inside access only to those files. Containers do this. But they also isolate the process id, network, and various other system resources.

Additionally with runtimes like docker they bring in vastly better tooling around this. Making them much easier to work with. They are like chroot on steroids, not simply marketing fluff.

Documentation is generally considered one of the stronger points of rust libraries. Crates.io is not a documentation site you want https://docs.rs/ for that though it is generally linked to on crates.io. A lot of bigger crates also have their own online books for more in depth stuff. It is not that common to find a larger crate with bad documentation.

They refuse to make changes to their C code, so it can cooperate with Rust code via bindings.

I don’t even think the rust devs where asking for that. They are refusing changes by rust devs that help with rust while making the c code clearer and even refuse to answer questions about the semantics behind the c code. At least as far as I can see from the outside.

Why do we need tests to be understandable by any human. IMO tests that go to that degree do so by obscuring what logic is actually running and make it harder as a developer to fully understand what is going on. I would rather just keep tests plain and simple with as few abstractions around them as possible.

Cypress cy.get(‘h1’).contains(‘Result’)
Playwright await expect(page.getByTitle(‘Result’)).toHaveCount(1)
Testing library expect(screen.getByTitle(/Result/i)).toBeTruthy()

We can nit pick about syntax here and I prefer the cypress one as it immediately tells me what it is doing and I am not even familiar with those frameworks but:

UUV Then I should see a title named “Result”

That tells me nothing about what it is actually doing. How is the framework meant to interpret that or similar things? It is imprecise and I have no way to validate it will do what I expect it should. I do not trust AI or LLMs enough to translate that into a workable test. Even if it works for simple situations like this how does it grow to far more real and complex test cases?

It would be one thing to use a LLM to generate a test for you that you can inspect - but to generate it probably on every run quite likely without being able to see what it did? Um No thanks. Not with the current state of LLMs.

At least I assume it is LLM based as there is no other way to do this as far as I am aware, though they dont seem to mention it at all.

Can when the specific situations are reached in very micro benchmark situations. But overall on aggregate you find even JIT languages don’t strictly outperform pre compiled languages for general workflows when looking at languages of a similar class. When you compare them to compiled languages like C/C++/rust/zip (aka ones without a GC or much of a runtime at all) then JIT languages fall behind like all other GCed languages.

Of these 25 reasons, most apply to a lot of languages and are far from Java exclusive or even java strong points. Pick any mainstream language and you will hit most of the benefits it lists here. With quite a few being almost meaningless. Like this:

Java/JVM/JIT can achieve runtime optimization on frequently run code, especially on something that’s running as a service so that you avoid the overheads from JVM startup times.

Compiled languages generally don’t need a JIT or to be optimized at runtime as they are compiled and optimized at compile time. And most language that don’t have a runtime like Javas already run faster than Java without its heavy startup time. Language with JITs are generally interpreted languages which have these same benefits as java lists here. Though do often suffer from other performance issues. But really at the end of the day all that really matters is how fast the language is and how good its startup times are. Java is not ahead of the pack in either of these regards and does not do significantly better then other languages in its same class (and often still drastically sucks for startup time).

Or

Much of a company’s framework can be stable Java, with Scala or Clojure-backed business logic.

Many languages you can embed other languages inside. Nothing really special about scala or clojure here except that they work well with java. And I don’t really see this as a major benefit as most places I see dont separate their core code and business logic into different languages.

And the remaining issues that are more java specific are:

Java was one of the first mainstream GC strongly typed OOP languages. So it got its niche.

Java has been one of the main programming languages taught in colleges and universities in the last few decades.

Java’s Legacy Migration: Many banks in particular migrated legacy systems to Java in the early 2000’s when it was getting a lot of popularity and the industry was collectively in the midst of a huge OOP fever dream.

Which all paint a picture - it was popular long ago and taught in universities and lots of business pushed it when back in the day. And now it is hard to move off it.

And lastly:

Oracle

What? How is this a point? If anything this should be a massive negative.

Not exactly 25 reasons to pick java in financial enterprise.

Did you read the article at all?

“Putting all new code aside, fortunately, neither this document nor the U.S. government is calling for an immediate migration from C/C++ to Rust — as but one example,” he said. “CISA’s Secure by Design document recognizes that software maintainers simply cannot migrate their code bases en masse like that.”

Companies have until January 1, 2026, to create memory safety roadmaps.

All they are asking for by that date is a roadmap for dealing with memory safety issues, not rewrite everything.

Sounds like you just need to keep the data on your server and use samba or NFS and a network mount on the other devices.

Or refactored at a later date.

You might want to checkout rust-script which essentially does the same but also lets you use it as a hashbang line to make executable rust scripts. And works with cargo/can install deps.

There is also an RFC for this feature.

Creating functions is IMO not the first thing you should do. Giving variables better names or naming temporaries/intermediate steps is often all you really need to do to make things clearer. Creating smaller functions tends to be my last resort and I would avoid it when I can as splitting the code up can make things harder to understand as you have to jump around more often.

Comments are not always a waste of time, but comments that repeat or tell you what the code is doing (rather than why) are a waste. For legacy code you generally don’t have comments anyway and the code is hard to read/understand.

But if you can understand the code enough to write a comment you can likely refactor the code to just make it more readable to start with.

For code that does not change generally does not need to be read much so does not need comments to describe what it is doing. And again, if you understand it enough to write a comment to explain what it is doing you can refactor it to be readable to begin with. Even for mathematical equations I would either expect the reader to be able to read them or link to documentation that describes what it is in much more detail to name the function enough that the reader can look it up to understand the principals behind it.

And they were arguing the same - just renaming the property rather than reusing it. You should only have one not both but naming them differently can make it clear which one you have.

But here I am arguing to not have either on the user object at all. They are only needed at the start of a request and should never be needed after that point. So no point in attaching them to a user object - just verify the username and password and pass around user object after that without either the password or hash. Not everything needs to be added to a object.