Unlurker|Replay|About
Why I Built My Own Kubernetes Cluster on Hetzner Cloud (onatm.dev)
•
Masallah
•
This looks like it's about kubernetes on Hetzner Cloud, not Hetzner dedicated, which was what the title made me believe.
•
I updated the title.
Modern cars are spying on you. Here's what you can do about it (apnews.com)
•
No doubt about this one. But, how much are the ubiquitous ride-for-hire e-scooters spying on you, and everyone else on the street?
•
It's where we are. Everything everywhere is collecting data and spying. If it exists in a database, then the government has access to that database if it ever wants to legally or otherwise. It's been like that since 9:11 and probably before. All we need now is for the right person to walk in and turn the key. We're lucky that Donald Trump is probably too stupid to understand what he's got under his thumb.
The Undermining of the CDC (newyorker.com)
•
Imagine letting someone that you don't know tell you if you can breathe freely, particularly after those people have continuously changed their nonsensical dictates, and were shown to not follow these dictates themselves. Imagine following this for 2 years and judging others that refused to bow to such dictates. Imagine celebrating that you are now allowed to breathe freely. Imagine being scared to breathe freely. Lastly, imagine denying that you were the victim of a psychological operation after these emotional responses were blatantly conditioned in millions of people, particularly targeting the populations of cities.
•
This essay rubs me the wrong way in that it continues to invest in this coastal elite attitude that the masses should do what we say because we are the experts. These people continue to miss the forest for the trees by avoiding the question: why have Americans lost faith in institutions? I largely consider Trump a symptom of a larger disorder, I think it is lazy to assume that he and his administration is the source of the breakdown here. Two thinkers come to mind to me in this case: 1. Hannah Arendt, particularly her writing in The Human Condition (and maybe as an analogue: the Anthony Downs book on Bureaucracy and perhaps Jacques Ellul's The Technological Society I think?): > Bureaucracy is the form of government in which everybody is deprived of political freedom, of the power to act; for the rule by Nobody is not no-rule, and where all are equally powerless we have a tyranny without a tyrant. Another comment talks about accountability, but a bureau is composed of people "just doing their jobs" without the personal accountability that helps keep systems accountable. Per Downs, bureaus eventually become mainly obsessed with their own survival over their original mandate, and it requires careful design to avoid this consequence. 2. Christopher Lasch: The idea that government institutions are required to force an centralized objectivity for democracy to survive is just about the opposite of what I think we actually need, per Lasch: > "[Specialized expertise is] the antithesis of democracy." > "Democracy works best when men and women do things for themselves, with the help of their friends and neighbors, instead of depending on the state." The attitude as espoused in this essay will not do any work to re-establish trust with Americans, it continues a long line of unaccountability or reflectiveness from the "adults in the room" on their own contributions to the degradation of the system by pretending Republicans or Trump are a unique aberration.
•
>this coastal elite attitude that the masses should do what we say because we are the experts I think this attitude, that the work the CDC and other boring agencies do is elitist, or that those who defend it are elitist, is the root of distrust. The fact is that these agencies do the long slogging boring work to establish what works and what doesn’t, only to be undermined in social media for clicks and ad impressions. The CDC had a very good reputation around the world for the work it did. Since covid everyone on the internet is somehow a health expert and the actual people doing the mountains of boring and thankless work are now seen as nothing more than gatekeepers to the social media platforms.
•
Why have Americans lost faith in institutions? Because other institutions convinced them to. Fox News, Heritage Foundation, Federalist Society, etc. This has been an organized effort for decades. It's embarrassing how "out in the open" the endeavour has been the whole time, that it can hardly be called a conspiracy.
•
You don’t think it’s more one party spending 40 years undermining Institutions to be able to gut them starting with Reagan’s “The Most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help’”? partially caused by the business elite working to gain influence over government since the Powell memo and partially caused by irrational fear of communism via socialism and partially by conservatives never wanting another Nixon and starting their own mouthpiece with Fox News, etc etc? Seems more like a well concentrated effort to me.
•
Between this and defunding of Univ. research plus the banning of $ for mRNA vaccine, the US just handed the future of Medical Research to China. I have seen articles recently that states China now leads the word in mRNA research, which is the future of vaccine research. Soon I expect the US to only allow praying over people for medical treatment, we are not far from that with the recent ACA changes.
•
We are embarking on a population-level Darwin Award experiment. Once the stupid people die off the overall population's resistance to stupidity will increase a little bit. But getting there means a huge number of innocent, non-stupid people will die.
•
What I find fascinating is the voting is this thread. What I find to be reasonable comments from me are getting downvoting in a way that never usually happens on HN! Is it me? I didn't think that the HN community would turn so hard against the CDC and basic infectious disease research.
•
It is the weekend HN effect. Conspiracy theories and low-information complaints thrive here on the weekends, presumably because of a weekly shift in audience demographics based on white collar working hours.
•
I was shocked by this during COVID. There's a huge anti-expertise, anti-institutions, anti-government-anything strain here, and they're very active on the various comment hiding buttons.
•
Not even a joke. States with lower Covid Vaccine coverage had more deaths. Technically, are Red States correct that they will achieve herd immunity, by letting their weak die off?
> The privilege that American scientists have taken for granted—one that is now being trampled—is the ability to go about their work free of political interference. Communism style solutions ("it is better to have everyone being extremely poor, rather than having some poor and some rich people") is a terrible solution. Trampling on everyone because other group got trampled earlier is not a solution at all. Presenting insane and deadly pseudoscience as science is stupid, dangerous and will kill people. But claiming that there were no problems whatsoever and no political interference at all is a really dubious claim. This kind of reality denial is unhelpful and further erodes whatever trust was left.
•
Both Repubs & Dems have lots of blood on their hands for their intentional mishandling of COVID (continued to this day, since the pandemic is not over) in service to our archaic consumption-first economy: https://www.thegauntlet.news/p/how-the-press-manufactured-consent https://web.archive.org/web/20240802024326/https://docs.house.gov/meetings/VC/VC00/20220302/114453/HHRG-117-VC00-20220302-SD009.pdf Capital interests own and control both parties, so it's no surprise we are getting results where it's okay to set the meat grinder to high.
•
Even in communism some were richer than others
I think you're taking issue with the wrong thing here lol. There may have been something before (it's the real world after all), but what RFK is doing is quite frankly insane.
•
> what RFK is doing is quite frankly insane. oh definitely - that is why I have not commented on this part of article, as I agree that such pseudoscience is simply idiotic, dangerous and will kill people and I am in agreement that it is bad But this part made me go "really? really? really?" - this kind of reality denial is not helpful either and prompted my comment. And they could phrase it a bit more mildly for far greater accuracy. I edited my initial comment a bit.
Doctors should wear pharma sponsorships on their coats like Formula 1 drivers do. Would put things into perspective.
•
Doctors do, as required by federal law. You can look up any doctor you like: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov
We also subjected a lot of the population to vaccine mandates in order to retain their employment. That makes sense for some workers, sure, but it bred a lot of resentment toward authority.
•
Doesn’t the military mandate vaccines for decades
•
Yes! The DoD uses the military to test novel vaccines with service members. That part of the “some jobs” because you’re being deployed worldwide to new situations. Historically, though, I believe it started because of the threat of biological/chemical warfare.
•
It didn't for decades until bad actors spewing lies worked to spread distrust in the system.
“Trust arrives on foot and leaves on horseback.” In my life there have been two huge destructions of public trust. The first was the Iraq war, which could only be the result of either bald faced lies or gross incompetence or both. We blundered into the desert and set a trillion dollars and countless lives on fire and have nothing to show for it. Tons of people across the spectrum knew this was a terrible idea and were silenced or ignored. The other was the 2008 bank bailouts. The problem isn’t that the state stepped in to avert a depression. The problem is that they did it by handing the very people who caused the crash a bonus and a promotion and then proceeded to reinflate the housing bubble to lock two generations out of home ownership. The response was that the Eastern establishment saved itself at the expense of the country, or that’s how it looked to a ton of people all across the country and the political spectrum including myself. There have been smaller cuts but those are the big obvious ones. You could never get a Trump or an RFK Jr without these two things. Unfortunately these two characters are not reformers. They are vultures. They are frauds and con men dining on the corpse of trust. I’m not Russian but I imagine that the failure of the Soviet regime and the hollowness of its propaganda did a number on trust over there, and that Putin and his allies are likewise vultures.
•
“ The other was the 2008 bank bailouts. The problem isn’t that the state stepped in to avert a depression. The problem is that they did it by handing the very people who caused the crash a bonus and a promotion and then proceeded to reinflate the housing bubble to lock two generations out of home ownership” What’s interesting about this telling of it is how it reinterprets history. You are complaining about a lack of trust based on, if not an outright lie, an extremely biased narrative. The most obvious missing piece is you don’t mention the auto makers or uaw workers at all. Or that you say “reinflate the housing bubble” instead of “subsidize mortgages on houses that should have been repossessed”. We forced banks that did have proper risk controls to take tarp funds and the attached compensation limits against their will and made money on many of the assets we bought with tarp funds. There is a trust gap, but it’s not some one way problem of coastal elites selling fables to enrich themselves and the good proletariat being duped. It’s at least as much a story of the populace not using critical reasoning skills to understand multifaceted and nuanced issues, which I suspect is not new.
•
It's a biased narrative, but perception of truth is equivalent to truth when it comes to trust, and multiple factors make this narrative compelling than more nuanced ones
uhh I think various parts of Trump's presidency seem to be tantamount to those things. Jan 6, for instance.
•
The Jan 6 mob isn't a public institution that ever had any public trust to lose.
The "we" who forfeited the trust of the country were the experts, like Fauci, who thought people were too stupid to understand any nuance of a situation. Maybe he had the same well-intentioned and misguided notions as rent control advocates who are myopically willing to trade long term well-being for short term expedience. Or maybe he was as arrogant as he seemed and believed he knew better than everyone else.
•
Also don't underestimate the effect of many politicians and government officials being caught violating the lockdown policies that they were forcing on the rest of us.
•
> Fauci, who thought people were too stupid to understand any nuance of a situation. Maybe he had the same well-intentioned and misguided notions as rent control advocates who are myopically willing to trade long term well-being for short term expedience. For me, this comparatively benign explanation of his behavior became much less plausible when the details of the EcoHealth arrangement became public. I'm not a big believer in the current so-called criminal justice system as a way to establish... well, justice, but I do think that a trial in open court for his crimes - even just the unambiguous perjury - was likely to be healing and perhaps restorative for our institutions of scientific research.
•
Probably can't be done. Presidential pardon power seems absolute. Unless you could find state crimes to prosecute.
>> Or maybe he was as arrogant as he seemed and believed he knew better than everyone else. Do you have any references for this? Our understanding of Covid evolved pretty rapidly during the pandemic and as usual hindsight is 20/20. I have no doubt that *you* are convinced of your statement. I'd just like to understand what data you based your conviction on.
•
It's pretty clear objectively that Fauci did a lot of lying and misleading. 1. Fauci admitted on TV that he'd been misleading the public about herd immunity numbers. He said he'd painted a rosier picture than reality in order to avoid making the world fear that we could never overcome the pandemic. -- https://thenationaltelegraph.com/opinion/dr-fauci-admits-to-lying-about-herd-immunity/ 2. Fauci admitted in Congressional hearing that the 6-foot social distancing rule was made up, with no experimental evidence. -- https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/06/03/anthony-fauci-house-hearing-covid-response/73955411007/ 3. Slightly more controversially, Fauci misled us by dissembling under questioning by Sen. Paul. By a strict technocratic definition that nobody he was talking to was privy to, he told the truth when he steadfastly maintained that there had been no GoF research. But by the plain meaning of the words, he was clearly lying. -- https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/04/fauci-says-rand-paul-egregiously-incorrect-about-gain-of-function-research.html I'm not sure these citations are the best, I don't have time to read through all of it, but hopefully it's illustrative.
•
Reading your links, I see lots of emotion and twisting of statements, and not much honest searching for the truth. I see a need to mock and ostracize and to try to twist others' statements and words. Do you not see that too? If there are better links to support your incendiary phrasing of points, it may help get the point across better. But I'm not sure you can find something that's not trying to misrepresent and sensationalize the issue.
•
"So, why weren't we told to wear masks in the beginning? 'Well, the reason for that is that we were concerned the public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply. And we wanted to make sure that the people namely, the health care workers, who were brave enough to put themselves in a harm way, to take care of people who you know were infected with the coronavirus and the danger of them getting infected.'"[1] [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20250501225159/https://www.thestreet.com/video/dr-fauci-masks-changing-directive-coronavirus
•
And?
•
And we had people believing he was telling the truth long after he changed course. His lie cost us all.
•
Really? Fauci understood that masks were effective for health care workers. Instead of saying we want to reserve them for health care workers, he downplayed their effectiveness to achieve the goal of reserving them for health care workers. That destroys trust.
•
You’re reading malice or deception where there is none, and are being very selective in your context window. You want to allocate resources to where they will have the biggest impact, and you want to ensure you don’t run out of resources for the most critical uses. They were transparent about this from the beginning.
•
I'm surprised that your simlple "And?" comment, requesting explanation, got such a downvoting. We can't even try to seek understanding of each others' opinions in this discussion, apparently.
•
This is the same society that was already hoarding *toilet paper*. There is a very strong streak of selfishness in American culture, so telling people "here's all the information, now be nice and don't ruin things for everyone" means that 100% of the time someone will ruin things for everyone to try to make a buck.
•
Fine. That's how he justified his actions. And maybe that produces a good short term result. The result is you lose trust and people don't believe you the next time you need them to.
>> For there to be democracy, there must be accountability. For there to be accountability, there must be some sense of truth, and under that some sense of trust of each other. When doctors questioned vaccine safety studies they were mocked and ostracized. Which is the opposite of truth seeking you think was going on.
•
Sincere request: Can you provide some specific examples of doctors being mocked or ostracized for criticizing studies?
•
I know the mocking, wicked tone is why a response on this comment was flagged and dead. > Your head is so far up your --- you can see daylight. They were mocked for being wrong, not for questioning orthodoxy. There is a well understood epistemology for these things, and you need basic competence to apply it. So, I have trouble anyone is so cocksure about vaccines and the shot rollout and the general response to covid like lockdowns, etc. I hope this is some consensus shaping bot, but in the case it is not and a real human wrote that, I just want to respond. Your loud, semi-religious devotion to a consumer product is disgusting. Your outrage fuels my resolve. There are different safety profiles for any drug, not all are equal. The covid vaxxes all have an atrocious safety profile, at least one was pulled in the states after wide distribution, all were experimental in nature and were generally rushed out to market. There needs to be jail time for the scoundrels that ignored safety signals. And on top of that the damn things didn't work and didn't stop the spread. Beyond that, the vaxxes were publicly funded corporate welfare, there was broad public-private collusion to force people to get it (no jab, no job), there were 1st amendment violations by businesses forcing employees to disclose medical statuses. You will not listen to reason, there are a million other sus things you all ignore about 2020-2022. I just hope everyone rebukes you and whatever neo-paganism has a death grip on your mind.
You are not being honest, but you are trying to your best to undermine the idea of honesty. Every vaccine safety study was questioned and examined, thoroughly. Introducing this idea of "mocked and ostracized," is a rhetorical tactic to try to establish the idea of some sort of mistreated people that other mistreated people can identify with. It's not based in truth of how the scientific community worked. If there's "mocking and ostracization" then it's in some sort of other social space, not in the evaluation of the vaccine safety studies. And by trying to conflate these two areas, you are trying to undermine the very idea of truth seeking, and replace it with this weird vibes-based in-group/out-group emotionally-based judgements. We need to pivot to rationality, and away from in-group/out-group analysis. Let's evaluate claims on their merits, not based on who is making them.
•
A lot of vaccine companies also made a lot of money from Covid-19, even when some of the vaccines were later judged shoddy or outlawed by some countries.
•
One perspective is that the quality and issues of vaccines can vary. Some have more side-effects than others, and some have more issues than others. Like one specific polio-vaccine that very rarely can mutate into a contagious variant [0]. Or one vaccine for chickens that had some rather serious overall issues [1]. Or that some of the Covid-19 vaccines, hastily developed, were rejected by some countries, while other Covid-19 vaccines were accepted by those same countries. And vaccines demand a huge amount of trust. Vaccines can be abused in lots of ways by governments, organizations and individuals [2]. This is extra unfortunate, considering the huge potential benefits of some variants of vaccines. Vaccines also require trust in competence and public control [3]. For urgency reasons, standards and checking of vaccines were lowered during the Covid-19 pandemic. Vaccines are also often administered to healthy individuals, not merely sick individuals. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek%27s_disease > Because vaccination does not prevent infection with the virus, Marek's is still transmissible from vaccinated flocks to other birds, including the wild bird population. The first Marek's disease vaccine was introduced in 1970. The disease would cause mild paralysis, with the only identifiable lesions being in neural tissue. Mortality of chickens infected with Marek's disease was quite low. Current strains of Marek virus, decades after the first vaccine was introduced, cause lymphoma formation throughout the chicken's body and mortality rates have reached 100% in unvaccinated chickens. The Marek's disease vaccine is a "leaky vaccine", which means that only the symptoms of the disease are prevented.[12] Infection of the host and the transmission of the virus are not inhibited by the vaccine. This contrasts with most other vaccines, where infection of the host is prevented. [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine > The fact that the CIA organized a fake vaccination program in 2011 to help find Osama bin Laden is an additional cause of distrust.[120] [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutter_Laboratories#Cutter_incident
•
> It's not based in truth of how the scientific community worked. If there's "mocking and ostracization" then it's in some sort of other social space, not in the evaluation of the vaccine safety studies. You seem to be doing just what the OP is complaining about. You've set up the scientific establishment as some sort of priesthood, which the great unwashed masses should not question. That's not how science should work, at least in a functional system. If only insiders have the privilege of asking "why?", then we'll be forever trapped in orthodoxy, or worse, trapped in authoritarianism. Unfortunately, the insurance policy against that trap - that annoying people will keep asking "why?" - itself has a steep price, sometimes almost turning into a heckler's veto. It's a tough problem.
•
> You've set up the scientific establishment as some sort of priesthood, which the great unwashed masses should not question. No, I absolutely have not. I'm representing what actually happened, in practice . The vaccines studies were heavily examined and critiqued inside the scientific community, and scientists found that they established safety. Trying to come back and say "that's too perfect, you're trying to establish them as a priesthood" is exactly the opposite of what I'm trying to do . All the critique is out there in the open, available to look for anybody who wants to. However, people prefer to be spoonfed stuff in YouTube videos, prefer to imagine a conspiracy oppressing them. You are spreading an image of the scientific community that is simply untrue and easy to disprove just by looking at what actually happened.
•
> The vaccines studies were heavily examined and critiqued inside the scientific community, and scientists found that they established safety. See, that's my whole point: "examined and critiqued inside the scientific community". If you didn't want the rest of society to accept "the rest of the scientific community" as a separate, privileged authority, then why did you even make this part of your reply?
It really did work like that. Government agencies in general are largely insulated from politics. You do your day to day work and wouldn't even notice a change of administration. The political appointees set the overall direction, and so projects come and go -- more or less at the same rate as they do even under the same administration. Having the President interfere so directly with ongoing operations is unprecedented. Maybe that's a good thing; people wanted a change and they got it. But it's not usual.
•
"largely insulated from politics" note that claim they made is that in past there was no political interference at all, not that it was smaller or manageable
•
"largely" does not mean "completely".
•
yes, exactly. And article makes the "completely" claim > The privilege that American scientists have taken for granted—one that is now being trampled—is the ability to go about their work free of political interference. which is just wrong and further erodes trust.
•
> Government agencies in general are largely insulated from politics. This was obviously false during the pandemic when these “health” agencies did what the White House wanted, from the actual “science” to the messaging.
•
Same president both times. Same bad idea.
Discovering that my smartphone had infiltrated my life (utcc.utoronto.ca)
•
This is the result of a society that has evolved to serve the commercial interests of a few rather than the technical needs of many; indeed, most people are Lebonian cattle (cf. Gustave Le Bon, The Psychology of Crowds), not homo oeconomicus. Digital identity should be a physical smart card, as has been the case for decades with mobile phone SIM cards, bank cards, etc every ID document and each of these, where issued by the public sector, should form part of a federated system of public administration ID that provides authentication services to citizens. Digital signatures should be a key stored on the smart card, not a third-party guarantor using SMS OTP, scanned signatures, or other absurd analogues. Yet this is not the case because most IT professionals know nothing and attempt to reconstruct with IT what they only understand through paper, thereby creating opportunities for a few to profit greatly from their ignorance, and nothing more.
•
When my phone died, I was helpless. Does anyone have even 1 phone number they can recall from memory? I couldn't, forcing me to travel home to get my laptop to access my contacts. So I make my way home but, oh wait, I can't use the Uber app without my phone. OK, I'll get a taxi! Oh wait, nothing to make a phone call with. I'll take the bus! Thank god I have a debit card on hand to pay, but how do I find a bus station and route home without my phone?! I am very close to giving up and buying 2 or more working phones at any time, for the same reason I keep a spare tire in the trunk. I would love to see google's Pixel program try this, where you get 2 phones, but are only charged if you activate the spare. It's is troubling to see Steve Job's dream come to it's full realization- these phones are not a luxury, or even a commodity. Living without a smartphone today is basically impossible.
•
In the Apple ecosystem, iPad Mini + LTE + VOIP for voice/SMS is a mobile backup device that can double as 2nd monitor for laptop, or dock with an external monitor and keyboard via USB-c. It does require avoiding sevices that mandate non-VOIP SMS 2FA. iPad cost is balanced by use or resale after several years. Sadly, there is no Google Pixel Tablet Mini (or even Pixel Tablet 2). Hopefully the upcoming OEM release of a GrapheneOS-compatible phone will be successful.
Migrating Dillo from GitHub (dillo-browser.org)
•
A good reason to move away from GitHub is it is from Microsoft (FAMAG; a company who kissed Trump's ring). Sourcehut is hosted in The Netherlands, and Codeberg in Germany.
•
I didn't know about forgejo, it looks pretty nice.
•
> On the usability side, the platform has become more and more slow over time The best reason right here.
•
I hope you will continue maintaining a mirror in GH. Some tools like deepwiki are excellent resources to learn about a codebase when their is not much documentation going around. But these tools only support pulling from GH.
•
I have the exact opposite experience where I had to block multiple such "excellent resources" from my search results.
•
How is pulling dependent on github? Git pulling isn't unique to github and it works over http or ssh?
do we really need to hear about every obscure project that leaves github?
•
Dillo is very cool and the blog post says more than «I moved away from Github.» It's actually quite interesting, I recommend to read it!
•
Obscure? Dillo has been alive more time than tons of HN users.
We’d love to have the Dillo project on Tangled! ;) https://tangled.org
•
I wish Tangled supported alternatives to Git
GitHub pull request pushes you a notification/e-mail to handle the merge, and you have to handle the pull request mostly online. I don't know how you can download the pull request as a set of patches and work offline, but you have to open a branch, merge the PR to that branch, test the things and merge that branch to relevant one. Or you have to download the forked repository, do your tests to see the change is relevant/stable whatnot and if it works, you can then merge the PR. --- edit: Looks like you can get the PR as a patch or diff, and is trivial, but you have to be online again to get it that way. So, getting your mails from your box is not enough, you have to get every PR as a diff, with a tool or manually. Then you have to organize them. e-mails are much more unified and simple way to handle all this. --- In either case, reviewing the changes is not possible when you're offline, plus the pings of the PRs is distracting, if your project is popular.
•
You could set up a script that lives in the cloud (so you don't have to), receives PRs through webhooks, fetches any associated diff, and stores them in S3 for you to download later. Maybe another script to download them all at once, and apply each diff to its own own branch automatically. Almost everything about git and github/gitlab/etc. can be scripted. You don't have to do anything on their website if you're willing to pipe some text around the old way.
I've been messing around with GitLab as a self hosted alternative for a few years. I do like it, but it is resource intensive! For the past few days I've been playing with Forgejo (from the Codeberg people). It is fantastic. The biggest difference is memory usage. GitLab is Ruby on Rails and over a dozen services (gitlab itself, then nginx, postgrest, prometheus, etc). Forgejo is written in go and is a single binary. I have been running GitLab for several years (for my own personal use only!) and it regularly slowly starts to use up the entirety of the RAM on a 16GB VM. I have only been playing with Forgejo for a few days, but I am using only 300MB of the 8 GB of RAM I allocated, and that machine is running both the server and a runner (it is idle but...). I'm really excited about Forgejo and dumping GitLab. The biggest difference I can see if that Forgejo does not have GraphQL support, but the REST API seems, at first glance, to be fine.
•
> I'm really excited about Forgejo Our product studio with currently around 50 users who need daily git access moved to a self hosted forgejo nearly 2 years ago. I really can’t overstate the positive effects of this transition. Forgejo is a really straightforward Go service with very manageable mental model for storage and config. It’s been easy and cheap to host and maintain, our team has contributed multiple bugfixes and improvements and we’ve built a lot of internal tooling around forgejo which otherwise would’ve required a much more elaborate (and slow) integration with GitHub. Our main instance is hosted on premise, so even in the extremely rare event of our internet connection going offline, our development and CI workflows remain unaffected (Forgejo is also a registry/store for most package managers so we also cache our dependencies and docker images).
•
https://forgejo.org/docs/latest/user/actions/basic-concepts/ It's a shame that GitHub won the CI race by sheer force of popularity and it propagates its questionable design decisions. I wish more VCS platforms would base their CI systems on Gitlab, which is much much better than GitHub actions.
•
If you want even more minimal, Gerrit is structured as a Java app with no external dependencies like databases, and stores all it's configuration and runtime information on the filesystem, mostly as data structures in the git repos. Shared filesystems is all you need to scale/replicate it, and it also makes the backup process quite simple.
We are in the disapora phase; there is a steady stream of these announcements, each with a different GitHub alternative. I speculate that within a few months, the communities will have settled on a single dominant one. I'm curious if it will be one of the existing ones, or something new. Perhaps a well-known company or individual will announce one; it will have good marketing, and dominate.
•
The bigger question is whether we want a single dominant replacement, or whether it just means we'll be back in the same place in 5 years.
•
> Perhaps a well-known company or individual will announce one; it will have good marketing, and dominate. Hah, exactly what we’re attempting with Tangled! Some big announcements to come fairly soon. We’re positioning ourselves to be the next social collab platform—focused solely on indies & communities.
In answer to my own question about in-depth decision making, I just found this presentation from February 2025 by seven-year GitHub veteran Joel Hawksley: https://hawksley.org/2025/02/10/lessons-from-5-years-of-ui-architecture-at-github.html Relevant quote: > But beyond accessibility and availability, there is also a growing expectation of GitHub being more app-like. > The first case of this was when we rebuilt GitHub projects. Customers were asking for features well beyond our existing feature set. More broadly, we are seeing other companies in our space innovate with more app-like experiences. > Which has led us to adoption React. While we don’t have plans to rewrite GitHub in React, we are building most new experiences in React, especially when they are app-like. > We made this decision a couple of years ago, and since then we’ve added about 250 React routes that serve about half of the average pages used by a given user in a week. It then goes on to talk about how mobile is the new baseline and GitHub needed to build interfaces that felt more like mobile apps. (Personally I think JavaScript-heavy React code is a disaster on mobile since it's so slow to load on the median (Android) device. I guess GitHub's core audience are more likely to have powerful phones?)
•
I honestly believe that the people involved likely already wanted to move over to React/SPAs for one reason or another, and were mostly just searching for excuses to do so - hence these kind of vague and seemingly disproportional reasons. Mobile over desktop? Whatever app-like means over performance? Non-technical incentives steering technical decisions is more common than we'd perhaps like to admit.
github is a tool used where code is written: on desktop computers no-one cares about the github mobile experience microsoft making the windows 8 mistake all over again
•
I interact with GitHub on my mobile phone every day.
•
yeah and I bet three people used Windows 8 on tablets too.
Don't throw away your old PC–it makes a better NAS than anything you can buy (howtogeek.com)
•
I'm looking for the quietest 6 bay NAS possible. I have a beQuiet case and six 30TB HDDs, and I plan to put the Ubuntu with a Plex server on a NVME SSD and do a ZFS 4+2. Can anyone point me to a better/quieter set-up? Thank you in advance.
•
Sure, if you're going to reuse something which would be thrown away or left to dust otherwise (foolish but I'd imagine someone does that). But don't do this just so you can upgrade your current pc. I'd vouch more for old laptops, which are generally not upgradeable, come with built-in UPS, if you remove the screen is as thin as a notebook and can handle low usage. Then you can connect either directly or via other interfaces a bunch of disks and you're golden.
•
I've been building and running various home servers for years. Currently I have a n eBay special FreeBSD quad xeon (based on the desktop socket) with 64GB ECC and a cheap SAS/SATA card running two ZFS arrays. On a side note: I hate web GUI's. I used to think they were the best thing since sliced bread but the constant churn combined with endless menus and config options with zero hints or direct help links led me to hate them. The best part is the documentation is always a version or two behind and doesn't match the latest and greatest furniture arrangement. Maybe that has improved but I'd rather understand the tools themselves.
•
Yes it is a NAS and it is cheap and convenient to repurpose hardware. But for anything where your data is important isn't ECC memory still critical for a NAS in this day and age?
After I had a reckoning with bitrot, would muchly recommend to use something with ECC memory for NAS. And a checksumming filesystem with periodic scrubing that won't get corrupt on you silently.
•
> checksumming filesystem with periodic scrubing Do you know a system that does this? Looking for this too
•
btrfs and zfs
> Because solar wind and hydro have no impact on the environment at all. Or nuclear. > I wish people would understand that waste is waste. Even less waste is still waste. So if I have 10 mining rigs connected to the state power grid, what the source of that energy has matters nothing for the environment? If I use a contract that 100% guarantees it comes from solar, it has the same environmental impact as if I use a cheaper contract that guarantees 100% coal power? I'm not sure if I misunderstand what you're saying, or you're misunderstanding what I said before, but something along the lines got lost in transmission I think.
•
> I repurposed an old gaming PC with a Ryzen 1600x, 24GB of RAM, and an old GTX 1060 for my NAS since I had most of the parts already > I wish people would understand that waste is waste I think the point is that the configuration from the post can easily run as low as maybe 30-40W on idle, but as high as a couple hundred depending on utilization. An off-the-shelf NAS probably spikes at most in the ~35W range, with idle/spindle-off utilization in the 10W range (I'm using my 4-bay Synology DS920+ as a reference). Normally the biggest contributor to NAS energy usage is the number of HDDs, so the more you add, the more it consumes, but in this configuration the CPU, the RAM, and the GPU are all "oversized" for the NAS purpose. While reusing parts for longer helps a lot for carbon footprint of the material itself, running that machine 24/7/365 is definitely more CO2-heavy w.r.t. electricity usage than an off-the-shelf NAS. And additional entropy in the environment in the form of heat is still additional entropy, whether it comes from coal or solar panels.
? It’s not like the machine would be custom built for him. Are you saying it’s fine to drive a huge truck if you’re single and just need to get around the block to buy a pack of eggs, just because the emissions are nothing compared to those required for making that smaller, more efficient car that you could buy instead?
•
The break-even point for the small car vs truck is much lower, so there it makes a lot more sense to switch.
I appreciate the message of this article. I've played with half a dozen types of home NAS / RAID / storage solutions over the decades. The best way I can describe it is: There are people who just want to use a car to get from A to B; there are those who enjoy the act of driving, maybe take it to the track on a lapping day; and there are those who enjoy having a shell of a car in the garage and working on it. There's of course a definite overlap and Venn diagram :-). My approach / suggestion - Understand what type are you in relation to any given technology vs what is the author's perspective. I will never resent the time (oh God so much time!) I've spent in the past mucking with homelabs and storage systems. Good memories and tons of learning! today I have family and kids and just need my storage to work. I'm in a different Venn circle than the author - sure I have knowledge and experience and could conceivably save a few bucks (eh not as given as articles make it seem;), as long as I value my time appropriately low and don't mind the necessary upkeep and potential scheduled and unscheduled "maintenance windows" to my non-techie users. But I must admit I'm in the turn-key solution phase of my life and have cheerfully enjoyed a big-name NAS over last 5 years or so :). The trick with old computers harnessed as NAS is the often increased space, power, and setup/patching/maintenance work requirements, compared to hopefully some learning experience and a sense of control.
•
I'm an not the relentless explorer and experimenter that you're sort of patronizing with this comment. I'm somebody who knows that you can put together a NAS with an old desktop somebody will give you for free, slap Debian Stable on it, RAID5 (4 or fewer) or RAID6 (5 or more) a bunch of drives together, and throw a samba share on the network in less than a day (minus drive clearing time for encryption.) It is not some sort of learning and growing experience. The entirety of the maintenance on the first one I put together somewhere between 10-15 years ago is to apt-get update and dist-upgrade on it periodically, upgrade the OS to the latest stable whenever I get around to it, and when I log in and get a message that a disk is failing or failed, shut it down until I can buy a replacement. This happens once every 4 or 5 years. The trick with big-name NAS is that they go out of business, change their terms, or install spyware on your computer and you end up involved in tons of drama over your own data. This guide is even a bit overblown. Just use MDADM.* It will always be there, it will always work, you can switch OSes or move the drives to another system and the new one will instantly understand your drives - they really become independent of the computer altogether. When it comes to encryption, all of the above goes for LUKS through cryptsetup. The box is really just a dumb box that serves shares, it's the drives that are smart. I guess MDADM is a (short) learning experience, but it's not one that expires. LUKS through cryptsetup is also very little to learn (remember to write zeros to the drive after encrypting it), but it's something that turnkey solutions are likely to ignore, screw up, or lock you into something proprietary through. Instead of getting a big SSD for a boot drive, just use one of those tiny PCIe cards, as small and cheap as you can get it. If it dies, just buy another one, slap it in, install Debian, and you'll be running again in an hour. With all this I'm not talking about a "homelab" or any sort of social club, just a computer that serves storage. The choice isn't between making it into a lifestyle/personality or subscribing to the managed experience. Somehow people always seem to make it into that. tl;dr: use any old desktop, just use Debian Stable, MDADM, and cryptsetup. Put the OS on a 64G PCIe or even a thumb drive (whatever you have laying around.) * Please don't use ZFS, you don't need it and you don't understand it (if you do, ignore me), if somebody tells you your NAS needs 64G of RAM they are insane. All it's going to do is turn you into somebody who says that putting together a NAS is too hard and too expensive.
•
Another way to put it - My home lab has production and non-production environments. Non-production is my kubernetes cluster running all the various websites, AI workflows, and other cool tools i love playing with. Production is everything in between my wife typing in google.com and google; or between my kids and their favorite shows on Jellyfin. You can guess which one has the managed solutions, and which one has my admittedly-reliable-but-still-requires-technical-expertise-to-fix-when-down unmanaged solutions.
Unfortunately PCs have mechanical devices that give out after a few years. I am referring of course to fans. I use a Raspberry Pi 4 running Ubuntu and Samba as my NAS. It is cheap and reliable.
•
I have fans for the early 00s. Also a fan is like $10? Things which are more vital than that are the disks, power supply, rams.
Windows drive letters are not limited to A-Z (ryanliptak.com)
From the article: > Drives with a drive-letter other than A-Z do not appear in File Explorer, and cannot be navigated to in File Explorer. Reminds me of the old-school ALT + 255 trick on Win9x machines where adding this "illegal trailing character" made the directory inaccessible from the regular file explorer.
•
Shhh… that’s how we hid the Duke Nukem installs on the boxen in the dorm computer lab.
Windows is not limited to accessing partitions through drive letters either, it's just the existing convention. You can mount partitions under directories just like you can in Linux/Unix. PowerShell has Add-PartitionAccessPath for this: > mkdir C:\Disk > Add-PartitionAccessPath -DiskNumber 1 -PartitionNumber 2 -AccessPath "C:\Disk" > ls C:\Disk It will persist through reboots too.
•
What, excuse me, the fuck ? I never knew one could do this. Thanks!
Only for NTFS (both source and dest) though, no exFAT shared drives under a folder mount or what have you. I think the same is actually true of ReFS for some reason. When you create/format the partition in the GUI tools it'll actually ask if you want to assign a drive letter or mount as a path as well.
•
I just tried mounting a exFAT partition at "C:\exFAT" and it worked just fine.
D was typically a CD-ROM drive. So when CD-ROMs went the way of the dinosaurs, where did D go ? Is it always some kind of SYS drive nowadays ?
•
It's just whatever happens to end up there? That's why D was typically the CD-ROM: A was the first floppy drive, B the (typically absent) second floppy drive, C the only hard disk, and then D was the next free letter. On my laptop, D is the SD card slot. On my desktop, it's the 2nd SSD.
•
D usually refers to the second internal storage device these days. Either a second SSD, a large HDD, or an extra partition in your system disk. If you don't have any of those, a USB stick might get the D drive temporarily.
Oh bless you and your youngsterness. A and B, by convention, were reserved for floppy drives and C was typically the first hard drive.
•
On systems with a single floppy, drives A: and B: were two logical drives mapped to the same physical drive. This enabled you to (tediously) copy files from one diskette to another.
Windows drive letters are ridiculous. Use an external drive for e.g. video editing, its letter can be stolen by another drive, you can’t work anymore.
•
I remember vividly when a user couldn't access his smb drive from Windows because both his printer and also the computer's case came with one of these multi-cardreaders with n slots and the drive letters collided. That's when I learned that smb drive letters don't even come from the "global" pool of drive letters, because, and this is obvious in hindsight, they are a per-user affair (credentials and all that). I think the concept of drive letters is flawed.
•
Even Microsoft appears to agree with you, given that drive letters are symlinks. It's basically legacy, there's just no plan or reasonable path forward that will remove them.
> Drives with a drive-letter other than A-Z do not appear in File Explorer, and cannot be navigated to in File Explorer. Well there goes my plan to replace all my drive letters with emojis :(
•
You would be limited to a fairly small subset of emojis, anyway: many (most?) of them are outside of the BMP so don’t fit into a single UTF-16 code unit, and some of the remaining ones are ordinary characters followed by an emoji style selector (U+FE0F), which doesn’t fit either.
Norway wealth fund to vote for human rights report at Microsoft, against Nadella (cnbc.com)
•
I'd like to see them pull all support for Bitcoin and crypto related "companies". As we all know, bitcoin's only use cases are scamming little old lady's out of thousands of dollars at atm's and speculation. It is not an investment vehicle, it is not a currency. If someone at the NWF is reading this, please take this into consideration. Let's start to take action against the fraud and grift, and try to make humanity a little better, one step at a time. Thank you.
•
HFSP
•
After decades of Bitcoin, how can you not know that it is the principal currency for darknet markets - ie the ability to purchase psychedelics without being involved with drug dealers?
[dead]
•
It looks like they divested from a 11 of 65 Israeli companies it holds shares in August. https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/society-equity/norway-wealth-fund-terminates-israel-asset-management-contracts-2025-08-11/
Norway's wealth fund's annualized return is only 6.6% since 1998. https://www.nbim.no/en/investments/returns Is this poor performance due to this kind of active management?
•
"Only" 6%? Bonds (a safe investment) are usually at ~2%. A conservatively allocated growth fund doing 6% is pret-t-y good.
> Microsoft already discloses extensive disclosures on key human rights risks, and has an independent assessment each year of how they manage risks and its commitment to protecting freedom of expression and user privacy Where can one find those extensive disclosures, especially for year 2024/2025? I'd love to hear how Microsoft are protecting freedom of expression and user privacy in a country like Saudi Arabia, which has a track record of excelling at whatever you'd call the opposite of those two things.
•
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/reports-hub https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/human-rights-statement https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/reporting-governance https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/reports/government-requests/customer-data https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/government-content-removal-requests-report
https://collaborate.unpri.org/group/35676/stream Saudi Arabia
•
"things happen"
It’s because Israel isn’t relevant here, it’s Saudi Arabia
•
ok I actually wanted to look up what antisematism actually means since the only context I've seen it is israel, so I looked up what sematism is which lead me to one who has sematic qualities which is: Semitic of, relating to, or constituting a subfamily of the Afro-Asiatic language family that includes Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, and Amharic Saudi Arabia is arabic so technically they're correct?
•
"semitic" has this broader meaning, yes, but the specific term "antisemitism" is only used to refer to Jews, not to Arabs (or, for that matter, Amharic-speaking Ethiopians). It also doesn't specifically refer to the State of Israel, but to Jews everywhere.
Casually throw 1.5 billion Indians under the bus. Along with antisemitism and conspiracies HN does need a flag comment button
•
There is, when you click on the timestamp of the comment.
And that isn't what should happen in a democracy. What percentage of Norway would really be willing to sacrifice their pensions for this? I don't know but I would bet a lot it's single digit percentage at most. So this show is exactly what should happen in a democracy, isn't it?
•
The fact it’s benign means something, I guess. Slippery slope perhaps, but in this matter at this moment it doesn’t have any hope of changing anything.
With a 1:16:29 runtime, could you at least share what parts are relevant to this submission, the very least timestamps? Even if I'd speed it up by 4x it'd take 30 minutes to listen to all of it.
•
No parts of it are relevant to this submission, because (as others explained to you elsewhere in the thread) the submission is about Norway objecting to Microsoft doing business with Saudi Arabia, whereas GP is about attacking Microsoft's ties to Israel. (For some reason, doing business with Saudi Arabia is not counted as evidence against the "Zionist", "genocide" etc. etc. narrative.)
"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department, says Werner Von Braun."
•
Are you seriously comparing "general purpose compute" to ballistic missiles?
Apples and Oranges comparison here. This isn't a world war we are talking about.
•
Have you seen pictures of Gaza? Scenes like this haven't been seen since WW2, maybe the Korean War or the Cambodia campaign.
Advent of Code 2025 (adventofcode.com)
•
I usually use multiple languages. Ocaml anf Go are always a pick. This year i think i want to try Gleam, and Haxe too.
Taking out the public leaderboard makes sense imo. Even when you don't consider the LLM problem, the public Leaderboard's design was never really suited for anyone outside of the very specific short list of (US) timezones where competing for a quick solution was every feasible. One thing I do think would be interesting is to see solution rate per hour block . It'd give an indication of how popular advent of code is across the world.
•
LLMs spoiled it, but it was fun to see the genuine top times. Watching competitive coders solve in real time is interesting (Youtube videos), and i wouldn't have discovered these without the leader board.
Are you saying that we all have different inputs? I've never actually checked that, but I don't think it's true. My colleagues have gotten stuck in the same places and have mentioned aspects of puzzles and input characteristics and never spoken past each other. I feel like if we had different inputs we'd have noticed by now.
•
You do get different inputs, but they largely share characteristics so good solutions should always work and naive ones should consistently fail. There has been the odd puzzle where some inputs have allowed simpler solutions than others, but those have stood out.
•
He puts together multiple inputs for each day, but they do repeat over users. There's a chance you and your colleagues have the same inputs. He's also described, over the years, his process of making the inputs. Related to your comment, he tries to make sure that there are no features of some inputs that make the problem especially hard or easy compared to the other inputs. Look at some of the math ones, a few tricks work most of the time (but not every time). Let's say after some processing you get three numbers and the solution is their LCM, that will probably be true of every input, not just coincidental, even if it's not an inherent property of the problem itself.
I use git-crypt to encrypt the inputs in my public repo https://www.agwa.name/projects/git-crypt/ :)
•
I don't push my solutions publicly, but I made an input downloader so you can input your cookie from your browser and load (and cache) the inputs rather than commit them.
I never understood the craze for "Advent of code". Already at this time of the year the last thing I want to do is code even more.
•
I code for fun, even in December.
People like different things
•
and dislike different things
By the same token, AI came along and we all still have intelligence, needless, eh? I mean people reading and writing stuff has nothing to do with AI. I don't see how some people see everything as a zero-sum game.
•
All AI is doing is solving these puzzles, which proves they don't need any form of intelligence. You're wrong for associating AI with human intelligence. It will never happen. It might be faked once, like the moon landing, but that's it.
How do they ruin interviewing? The whole point of these puzzles is that they’re meant to be fun to solve, not a means to an end, but enjoyable for what they are.
•
Tell HR, they don't seem to get it
Opinion poll: Python is extremely suitable for these kind of problems. C++ is also often used, especially by competitive programmers. Which "non-mainstream" or even obscure languages are also well suited for AoC? Please list your weapon of choice and a short statement why it's well suited (not why you like it, why it's good for AoC).
•
AoC has been a highlight of the season for me since the beginning in 2015. I experimented with many languages over the years, zeroing in on Haskell, then Miranda as my language of choice. Finally, I decided to write my own language to do AoC, and created Admiran (based upon Miranda and other lazy, pure, functional languages) with its own self-hosted compiler and library of functional data structures that are useful in AoC puzzles: https://github.com/taolson/Admiran https://github.com/taolson/advent-of-code
•
If I remember correctly, one of the competitive programming experts from the global leaderboard made his own language, specifically tailored to help solve AoC problems: https://github.com/betaveros/noulith
I've been using Elixir since day one, and it works pretty well :)
•
I plan to do it in elixir too this year :)
I like to use Haskell, because parser combinators usually make the input parsing aspect of the puzzles extremely straightforward. In addition, the focus of the language on laziness and recursion can lead to some very concise yet idiomatic solutions. Example: find the first example for when this "game of life" variant has more than 1000 cells in the "alive" state. Solution: generate infinite list of all states and iterate over them until you find one with >= 1000 alive cells. let allStates = iterate nextState beginState # infinite list of consecutive solutions let solution = head $ dropWhile (\currentState -> numAliveCells currentState < 1000) allStates
•
Does this solution allocate on each iteration?
I’ve always used AoC as my jump-off point for new languages. I was thinking about using Gleam this year! I wish I had more profound reasons, but the pipeline syntax is intriguing and I just want to give it a whirl.
•
That's a perfectly valid reason. I tried AoC out one year with the Wolfram language, which sounds insane now, but back then it was just a "seemed like the thing to do at the time" and I'm glad I did it.
> By measuring it as a race, it becomes a race, and now the goal is the metric. It becomes a race when you start seeing it as a race :) One can just... ignore the leaderboard
•
I've ignored the leaderboard for its entire existence, as the puzzles release at something like 4AM-5AM in my timezone; there's no point getting up 4 hours early, or staying awake 4 hours after bedtime, for some points on the internet. Instead, getting gold stars for solving the puzzles is incentive enough, and can be done as a relaxing thing in the morning. No matter what you do, as the puzzles get harder, you won't solve them in a day (or even a lifetime) if you don't come up with good algorithms/methods/heuristics.
"Just ignore it" doesn't work, psychologically.
•
I never, in all the years of participating in AoC did take a look at the global leaderboard. Even before LLMs I knew it was filled with with results faster then you can blink. So some of us, from gut feeling the vast majority, it was always just for fun. Usually I spent at least until March to finish as much as I did in every year.
> Should I use AI to solve Advent of Code puzzles? No. If you send a friend to the gym on your behalf, would you expect to get stronger? Advent of Code puzzles are designed to be interesting for humans to solve - no consideration is made for whether AI can or cannot solve a puzzle. If you want practice prompting an AI, there are almost certainly better exercises elsewhere designed with that in mind. And yet I expect the whole leaderboard to be full of AI submissions... Edit: No leaderboard this year, nice!
•
Depends how you look at it. Some of my colleagues rave about Claude Code, so I was thinking about trying it out on these puzzles. In that sense it is "going to the gym", just for a different thing. Since I do AoC every year, I feel like it'll give me a good feel for Claude Code compared to my baseline. And it's not just "prompting", but figuring out a workflow with tests and brainstorming and iteration and all that. I guess if the LLM can just one-shot every puzzle that's less interesting, but I suppose it would be good to know it can do that...
CachyOS: Fast and Customizable Linux Distribution (cachyos.org)
•
Using daily with niri and it feels way faster compared to omarchy
Here to say that cachyos is by no means just a gaming os it's a really nicely packaged distro and works much better than KDE neon, far better than manjaro. It also generally feels snappier for simple things like opening terminal, but I am pretty sure that was a kde neon issue. I only use KDE so your experience might be different than mine.
•
Regarding the KDE aspect: my preferred DE is KDE and I installed CachyOS with that. Everything seemed to go smoothly and using it was also a good experience. With that said, I ran into an age-old problem: sleep. (For reference, I have an AMD Ryzen CPU, RTX 4070 super GPU and some low-end motherboard and I am using the proprietary nvidia drivers.) I searched the web for hours and tried a lot of things, including different kernels, but nothing helped. In the end, after I couldn't find anything new on forums, reddit, blog posts, etc, I asked chatgpt for some ideas. It had me change BIOS settings, kernel params, nvidia module params (or something like that - I'm not well versed in this topic tbh), etc, but in some way waking up from sleep still did not work. After it suggested some undocumented kernel param with the nvidia kernel module, I said that's it, let's try something else and reinstalled with Gnome. To my surprise, it worked without issue. I've been using it like this for weeks now. I have no idea if the explanation is good or not but chatgpt said it's because my hardware + proprietary nvidia driver + plasma wayland was a bad combination.
> whatever hole that perspective came from Rude (A perspective based on 25 years of using Linux fwiw)
•
It's a hole because it's pessimistic, borderline antagonistic and against more user choices. I guess the hacker in me just feels weird reading someone wanting less choices on a forum for curious hackers.
Fedora has been rock solid for a few years (minus Zoom + Nvidia), as my primary work OS. I'm always nervous to jump to an Arch-based distro as my daily driver, for fear of having to regularly fix issues. Is this a legitimate concern in 2025? Would my experience (especially with graphics) be improved on something like Cachy?
•
As another commenter said, sometimes upgrades require manual intervention. You can fix this using a tool like informant which shows you all the interventions you have to do before you upgrade. Also, you can use a tool like snapper + btrfs-assistant (both of which come pre-installed on Cachy IIRC) which lets you fully revert your filesystem (snapper rollback) or partially (snapper undochange) if something breaks. Just make sure to use a btrfs filesystem for that.
> Arch being unstable is a myth. Arch follows a rolling release model. It's inherently unstable, by design.
•
You are probably using some annoying pedantic definition of unstable. Most people mean it to mean “does stuff crash or break”. Packages hang out in arch testing repos for a long time. In fact, Fedora often gets the latest GNOME release before Arch does, sometimes by months.
•
> You are probably using some annoying pedantic definition of unstable. Most people mean it to mean “does stuff crash or break”. English has a specific word for that: reliable. Pedantry aside, having a complex system filled with hundreds (thousands?) of software packages whose versions are constantly changing, and whose updates may have breaking changes and/or regressions, is a quick way of ending up with software that crashes or breaks through no fault of the user (save for the decision to use a rolling release distro).
Same here as well, using arch as daily driver for 10+ years now. I think just twice I've had major headaches due to package/kernel upgrades which required a few hours troubleshooting. Otherwise, smooth sailing and a pleasure to work with. Love the AUR (w/ pikaur)!
•
> Love the AUR (w/ pikaur)! Never heard about pikaur before (Rua gang here), but judging by the screenshots, does it not allow you to review the PKGBUILD before building the package? Seems to me like the most basic feature a AUR helper has to have, since AUR is all user-contributed without reviews. Is pikaur really letting you install packages blindly like that?
> Of course it is a thing when the country of their nationality is committing genocide, and an authoritarian government. Bit ironic to continue posting comments here, isn't it? None the less, I agree with your worry and caution based on where software is produced, but I enact that by checking my OS/software before installing/updating it, not spreading FUD on internet forums.
•
What’s your procedure for checking it? How would you discover if the FSB has forced them to put a timebomb in?
I really dislike that Linux proper doesn't by default have x.xx-server, x.xx-workstation, x.xx-laptop and x.xx-desktop kernel variants. Or just doesn't have defaults, requiring distros to think about what to set during compilation. A lot of the current defaults stem from the 90s, and often were eyeballed by the creator of said code. They're not good defaults for modern servers nor workstations nor laptops nor desktops. And all of those devices work best with different defaults. It doesn't seem (yes, appearances can be deceiving) to be that much work, because no extra code needs to be written. For each variant, just set different default parameter values for stuff like swappiness, lazy RCUs and what not. Make it a thing to revisit the defaults every 10 years. CachyOS and some other distros already do this, but a big chunk of distros doesn't because they think the defaults are well-thought out.
•
> CachyOS and some other distros already do this, but a big chunk of distros doesn't because they think the defaults are well-thought out. Based on what I saw 1-2 years ago last time I looked at it, most distributions to customize and don't use the defaults straight up. From memory, so someone correct me if I'm wrong: - RHEL/SLES - Lots of patches to kernels - Arch - Closer to just using defaults, some config choices and downstream adjustments (so the opposite of CachyOS almost, which is why we have CachyOS in the first place) - Ubuntu - Probably the most patched distribution compared to upstream components, also includes a lot of Canonical-specific stuff on top of that. - Fedora - Has some bleeding edge bits and bobs - Debian - Bit more conservative than Ubuntu, but still has patches for stability, security and backports. In my experience, distributions changing the defaults and customizations seems to be the norm rather than the exception.
This isn't surprising. All of the X11 based WMs are slowly bit-rotting. Unless the people that care about them step up and start maintaining the stack instead of just endlessly complaining about Wayland it'll only get worse.
•
I use dwm. There is no bitrot.
Yep that's it! I ended up just buying a headset for gaming, since I use the other one for mostly music anyways. Solved the issue there. There were some workarounds I could try but I needed a new gaming headset anyways, the padding on my old one basically just fell apart after almost 7 years.
•
I live in fear of the day that will happen to mine. I have an old Arctix RF headset, from back when they didn’t use Bluetooth and the quality was actually good. I’ve yet to find anything equivalent being produced today.
CachyOS would require Arch Linux to implement the support first. Progress is slow but steady: - https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/arch-dev-public@lists.archlinux.org/thread/LTJPVTU3QOYTDM7NNQIJPM63W2SDZNGF/ - https://rfc.archlinux.page/0032-arch-linux-ports/
•
Tired: x86_64 Wired: arm64
Because there is no need. It just the usual trend/hype. * Manjaro is Arch. * Cachy is a patched Arch (exactly what Arch avoids, heavy patching). * SteamOS is Arch. * Arch is Arch. Any useful and stable patch will be merged by upstream. That is why using CachyOS or ClearLinux isn’t beneficial in long term. When the patch works it will finally land even in Debian Stable.
•
Of course there is a need - if you get a brand new PC don't you want it to perform as it should? Or do you want to wait another 2 years for that to happen? Also very few people want to tinker with every single little thing, they want a nice stable base that does what you expect and build upon it - that's why most people were fine with previous versions of windows. So if cachy fixes 95% of the issues for you, why not go for it? Saving time and headache is a reasonable thing for a focused distro.
 Top