Presumably because it locks your bootloader or something, such that you are unable to wipe your PC once you're finally done pulling your hair out and ready to admit defeat? ;-)
There’s a sense of order and tidiness in running Nix on multiple machines with diverse uses and hardware, all based on single configuration, that’s difficult to let go off once you’ve tried it.
It’s basically an elegant weapon, for a more civilized age.
Yeah, I noticed that this is a beast you do not want to disturb. But what I did not anticipate, is that the beast was also prone to disturbance by evolving dependencies.
Maybe it is a glimpse into what appeasing an unreasonable diety was like, back in the earlier times. We don't dare leave Dagon, but he is making our crops fail and we must figure out a way.
For any nix-curious person out there check out Julia Evans posts [0]
But also note that she eventually moved out of it
> (note from 18 months later in August 2024: I’ve mostly switched back to Homebrew, nix was interesting but overall I think it’s not worth the complexity for me)
From the user perspective Figma is great, and I might say it’s even better. However, all that came from throwing more money into the problem, I believe. Figma just won because they invested unlimited money into this, while Sketch might be self-funding, if I’m correct here. To me this is rather ‘money is a very nice asset to have’ kind of thing.
Very different strategies. Sketch has been self-funding and sustainable from day 1. They have had 20m funding recently, but a fraction of Figma's 749m.
Figma lost over 1bn in Q3 on revenues of 274m. Share price is down 70% from IPO 3 months ago.
It's also clear from Figma's latest product releases - a grab bag of unfinished AI tools and a laughably shoddy website builder - that their primary audience is investors and not end users. I don't think the market of product designers is large enough to support their valuation and have any hope of making a decent return unless they diversify rapidly into other areas and try to become the next Adobe. Meanwhile Canva and more AI native tools are busy biting at their heels.
Speaking as a daily user, I hope they stay around long-term and don't enshittify themselves too much. But I'm not optimistic.
Eh. imo this is a hard moral high ground to claim if you publicly (and falsely, as we now know) accuse someone of a crime and threaten legal action in a blog post
The idea is cool but boy does it make you blind to anything the AI doesn't deem noteworthy. Comes down to whether you trust a human reviewer more, or the LLM
I'm not sure what your point is here. OP was clearly using "three letter guy" in the sense "so famous people know them by their initials". This is hardly unread of, e.g. https://wiki.c2.com/?ThreeLetterPerson
It was the "Great to see _some_ 3letter guy into this" underlined some that.
It felt bit like s/some/random/g perhaps would apply when reading it. Intentional or not by writer. It made me long and write my comment. There are many 3letter user accounts, which some are more famous than others. To my generation not because they were early users, but great things what they have done. I'm early user too and done things then still quite widely being used with many distributions, but wouldn't compare my achievements to those who became famous and known widely by their account, short or long.
Anyhow I thought that "djb" ring bell anyone having been around for while. Not just those who have been around early 90 or so when he was held renegade opinions he expressed programming style (qmail, dj dns, etc.), dragged to court of ITAR issues etc.
But because of his latter work with cryptography and running cr.yp.to site for quite long time.
Is this because they're that famous though or simply because there weren't as many people in the scene back then? We just don't do the initials thing anymore.
Yes: the fame is the subtext. It's akin to mononyms; they'd be referring to famous people like Shakira, Madonna, or Beyoncé. A lot of us have first names, but the point isn't that one's family calls them "Dave" without ambiguity.
There were many unix instances, and likely multiple djb logins around the world, but there's only one considered to be the djb, and it's dur to fame.
Sequoia-PGP is 8 years old at this point, their 1.0 happened half a decade ago.
Meanwhile, GnuPG is well regarded for its code maturity. But it is a C codebase with nearly no tests, no CI pipeline(!!), an architecture that is basically a statemachine with side effects, and over 200 flags. In my experience, only people who haven't experienced the codebase speak positively of it.
It's rather that GnuPG is ill-regarded for its code immaturity tbh. You don't even need to read the code base, just try to use it in a script:
It exits 0 when the verification failed, it exits 1 when it passed, and you have to ignore it all and parse the output of the status fd to find the truth.
It provides options to enforce various algorithmic constraints but they only work in some modes and are silently ignored in others.
reply