“Everything is a file” means that many of the system’s components are represented as abstractions in the filesystem. It’s simply an API that allows reading from and writing to it by integrating into the hierarchical file structure.

If you take a look inside /sys, you will find a fuckton of files, but they don’t represent data stored on a mass storage medium. Instead, the directory contains a mounted sysfs filesystem that contains file-like representations of various parts and properties of the system. For example, you can read them like a file by running cat /sys/block/sda/queue/rotational to check if the sda block device is a spinning disk (1) or solid-state storage (0). Or you can write to them like a file by running echo 1 > /sys/block/sda/devices/delete to command sda’s driver to detach the device. Similarly, /proc contains a mounted procfs filesystem that presents information about running processes as file-like entries; /dev contains a mounted devfs that points to various devices; and /tmp and /run contain tmpfs mounts for temporary storage in volatile memory (RAM or swap).

Windows uses various other APIs (like the Component Object Model and others) to accomplish the same that are not necessarily tied into the filesystem.

It follows the same convention as most programming languages that expose the argument list. Python’s sys.argv has the program name at index 0 and the first argument at index 1. C’s char **argv does the same: index 0 is the program name, index 1 is the first argument. So it stands to reason that Zsh’s $0 should be the program name and $1 should be the first argument…

…which, by the way, is exactly what Bash does as well.

That isn’t incorrect, but it’s not as important as people make it out to be. Linux isn’t certified as POSIX-conformant either.

People are way too stuck on POSIX regarding Fish specifically, but in shell scripting, POSIX compliance boils down to “can it run a pure sh script”. Bash is compliant. Zsh is partially compliant and needs to set an option to emulate sh. Fish uses a different syntax and is not compliant; if that is a problem, don’t execute sh scripts in Fish.

POSIX compliance for shell scripts was important in the 80s and 90s when the #! directive wasn’t as commonly implemented and every script might be executed by the user’s $SHELL instead. That is no longer the case as virtually every Unix-like system’s program loader supports #!.

It’s every person’s responsibility to make sure their mom’s (or dad’s (or other parental figure’s)) vibrator runs only secure, trusted software!

My heart bleeds for you, you poor oppressed victim of systemic injustice.

And the worms are winget.

I mean… that’s not incorrect, but…

>>> len("apt update && apt upgrade")
25
>>> len("pacman -Syu")
11

let you build faster like Python

I have to write so much boilerplate code to make sure my objects are of the correct type and have the required attributes! Every time I write an extension for Blender that uses context access, I have to make sure that the context is correct, that the context has the proper accessor attributes (which may not be present in some contexts), that the active datablock is not None, that the active datablock’s data type (with respect to Blender, not Python) is correct, that the active datablock’s data is not None… either all that or let the exception fall through the stack and catch it at the last moment with a bare except and a generic error message.

I used to think that static typing was an obstacle. Now I’m burning in the isinstance/hasattr/getattr/setattr hell.

It’s a combined disability discount: people with hook hands, peg legs, and eyepatches may be entitled to a price as low as 0%.

None of the issues you’ve described are Cargo’s fault. The long compilation time is simply rustc’s compile-time checks (ensuring type and memory safety is much more involved than lexing in GCC), and the number of dependencies to compile is a result of the crate ecosystem. Cargo is just the front-end that automates fetching dependencies and compilation with rustc. Blaming it for slow compilation is like hitting your monitor when the computer is acting up.

It’s called a hyperbole.

(edit) But, honestly, it’s still kind of accurate. Many of the most significant software suites that define the Linux ecosystem in more recent decades were written in the 80s or earlier. X (the display protocol) was released in 1984, and X11 in 1987. GNU Emacs was released in 1985. Vi, in 1976. UNIX System V, from which sysvinit and compatible init systems were adopted, was released in 1983. It’s not a stretch to say that certain people want to regress to the 1980s state, even if the kernel wasn’t around.

Off the top of my head, in no particular order:

• Systemd and its components are responsible for too many essential system functions. Init, services, mounts, timers, logging, network config, hostname, DNS resolution, locale, devices, home directories, boot, NTP sync, and I’m sure there are others, can be handled by systemd or one of its components.
• Systemd violates the UNIX philosophy of “do one thing and do it well”. Systemd is a complex solution to a complex problem: this thread has several comments by a former Arch Linux maintainer that explains why they’ve switched to systemd, and why the earlier method of using single initscripts was unsustainable.
• It is owned and maintained by Red Hat, known for its many controversies.
• Some people just don’t like modern things and think that the Linux ecosystem peaked in the 1980s.

Most (though not all) of the popular complaints are completely unreasonable. Those people usually see themselves as moral and righteous and expect the world at large to follow their personal creed. I especially consider the UNIX philosophy to be outdated, and strict adherence to it to be an obstacle for modern apps and systems.

I have some issues with systemd, and I don’t like that one for-profit company has such a massive influence over the entire Linux ecosystem, but I have to acknowledge that it works, it works well enough to counter my personal issues, and that the people whose opinion matters the most (specifically Debian and Arch maintainers) chose it for a good reason.

Nintendo sees rock bottom as a challenge.

The rules are on the same page I linked (https://www.indiegameawards.gg/faq), under the “Game Eligibility” tab. I gave them the benefit of doubt and assumed that they had defined the exact terms of what is and isn’t allowed, but apparently I was wrong. Regarding AI, the document contains a grand total of one sentence:

Games developed using generative AI are strictly ineligible for nomination.

I’m assuming the definition of what that entails is “at their discretion”, meaning whatever they feel like at the moment. I see that sentiment reflected in this thread too.

It’s possible that potential nominees have to sign some kind of declaration that they’ve complied with the rules, and that might include a more detailed list of rules, but I have no evidence to support this.

Unfortunately the boundary between “AI” and “not AI” is the polar opposite of sharp and well-defined. I’ve used Allegorithmic Substance Designer a lot for CGI work (before Adobe ate the devs; fuck Adobe, all my homies hate Adobe), and it contains a lot of texture generator algorithms from simple noise to complex grunge textures. Things like Perlin noise and Voronoi diagrams are well-known algorithms and definitely not AI. Chatbot slop is right out, but in between those two, things get remarkably fuzzy and Heisenbergian. What about an algorithm that uses real-world samples, like an image? Or multiple images? Machine learning is not the same as AI, so is that allowed? Where’s the line? I’m reasonably certain that everybody has a different answer for different situations based on different criteria.

The issue is not that the game was disqualified. If the rules clearly and unequivocally state that at no point can generative AI be used (and also clearly state what, in the spectrum from algorithms -> machine learning -> chatbot slop, they consider to be unacceptable, which I don’t know if they did or not, guess what, they didn’t, but that’s not the point), then there is no controversy, and I’m not criticising that.

The issue is that the article completely disregards mitigating facts that counter the narrative. There are no credible sources linked in the article save for one that was grossly misrepresented. Critically, we don’t know what Sandfall actually said before the nomination or after, or how the decision to disqualify was made, only the second-hand account in the FAQ. The article presents circumstances in a biased way, leading the reader to interpret it with the assumption that there are AI-generated assets currently in the game. It is, frankly, sloppy journalism.

Both harmonicas and bagpipes produce sound by passing air over one or multiple reeds (tuned to resonate at specific fundamental frequencies), inducing oscillations in the reeds, which modulate the air flow. Bagpipes use pipes to amplify the sound, and harmonicas use the cavity between the reed plate and the body, and often the player’s hand.

A digital keyboard that doesn’t produce sound is just a fancy human interface device.