Permissive licenses are truer to the spirit of free software but copyleft, while kind of a copout, seems more pragmatic due to corporations. I wouldn’t avoid copyleft licensing on principle or anything but it feels incongruous to want to make something freely available to all but then nitpick over how they use it.
It’s new to me, I think it’s saying that your system is built up by you declaring what you want in a file, a single source that everything comes from.
It’s atomic because each action the system takes is carefully completed rather than bailing out and requiring you to fix something.
It’s immutable meaning you declare how you want things to be set up and then critical changes stem from those declarations and nothing else. You would obviously generate preferences, save data, etc. but the files that make the system / packages work are carefully locked.
It’s like the concept of flatpaks + structured system defining + modern common sense OS operations?
No problem. I’m no guru and I’m currently on Zig but I think learning some Rust is a really fast way to hone skills that are implied by other languages.
You use lifetimes to annotate parameters and return values in order to tell the compiler about how long things must last for your function to be valid. You can link a specific input with the output, or explicitly separate them. If you don’t give lifetimes the language uses some basic rules to do it for you. If it can’t, eg it’s ambiguous, then it’s a compile error and you need to do it manually.
It’s one of the harder concepts of rust to explain succinctly. But imagine you had a function that took strA and strB, used strB to find a subsection of strA, and then return a slice of strA. That slice is tied to strA. You would use 'a annotation for strA and the return value, and 'b for strB.
Rust compiler will detect the lifetime being shorter than expected.
Also, ownership semantics. Think c++ move semantics. Only one person is left with a good value, the previous owners just have garbage data they can’t use anymore. If you created a thing on the heap and then gave it away, you wouldn’t have it anymore to free at the end. If you want to have “multiple owners” then you need ref counting and such, which also stops this problem of premature freeing.
Edit: one more thing: reference rules. You can have many read-only references to a thing, or one mutable reference. Unless you’re doing crazy things, the compiler simply won’t let you have references to a thing, and then via one of those references free that thing, thereby invalidating the other references.
The other day I was trying to disable Ubuntu Pro stuff and the way to do it reminded me of Windows. Once I get my media backed up I’m switching to another distro, just not sure what one yet.
I always eat messy things by leaning over my plate, or carefully taking bites above a bag or whatever. I like being fastidious.
In F1 they’re usually great. More grounded observations / opinions, from either former drivers or at least people who have been around the paddock for decades. They feel more “objective” regarding what they talk about and what they’ll allow themselves to hypothesize about.
I don’t watch much NBA and NFL but the analysts / opinion guys seem goofy and way too loose with opinions. I think they’re all entertainment so the more outlandish their statements the better the engagement.
In chess the players and analysts are all way above my level, but as far as I can tell, they do a good job at breaking down the position and giving you an idea of what super grandmasters are thinking. But this is more commentator and less analyst.
This is just one angle:
It’s because money and resources are only valuable in a literal, clinical way. It’s a math problem that beats us over the head until we start thinking that’s how you measure value. That crap is how we sustain our bodies but not our “spirit.” True value comes from humans transmuting basic matter into feelings, sentiments, memories. All the money in the world couldn’t help Gates buy a good gift for himself. He needs people close to him to transmute objects into meaningful gifts.
I think the richer you are, the more aware you are that “money can’t buy happiness.” When we plebs hear this we can’t help but think about the literal value of things, but if you’re rich it takes on a different connotation. Though I can only assume and extrapolate what it must be like.
That’s what I said. Free licenses are for free software, while copyleft is for “free software.” Copyleft is because corporations like Xerox will act in bad faith, etc. Free licenses are for free software. Copyleft is for Free Software, The Movement. People aren’t cucks for not deigning to make every piece of code they write part of some statement.