The archinstall script has a list of “profiles” that you can select from (custom, desktop, minimal, server, tailored, xorg)… And if you select “desktop” it will prompt you which DE or WM you want to install. (awesome, bspwm, budgie, cinnamon, cosmic, cutiefish, deepin, enlightment, gnome, hyprland, i3, lxqt, mate, plasma, qtile, sway, xfce4).

By the time you’re done with the archinstall script, you basically have a fully functioning arch (ive never used the script seriously, so I have no idea what all remains not set up doing this).

The main difference between Arch and Ubuntu in this regard, is that if you want to run KDE Plasma, you download the common Arch ISO, and select Plasma at installation time. Compared to Ubuntu where you would download the “Kubuntu” spin, so you are selecting Plasma when you acquire the ISO in the first place.

There is no “default” arch DE, so when you install Arch, there is a lot of decisions to make (and you may not know how to make those decisions if its your first distro), whereas Ubuntu makes a lot of decisions for you, so you have to answer no questions to get set up (but you may be set up in a way you weren’t expecting). In this regard, Arch really does just feel like building a PC from parts, you just have to pick all the parts. Ubuntu is more like buying a pre-built.

One of my (otherwise random) WoW guild members had my grandma as his kindergarten teacher.

You’re right. There are multiple definitions of the word stable, and “unchanging” is a valid one of them.

It’s just that every where else I’ve seen it in computing, it refers to a build of something being not-crashy enough to actually ship. “Can’t be knocked over” sort of stability. And everyone I’ve ever talked to outside of Lemmy has assumed that was what “stable” meant to Debian. but it doesn’t. It just means “versions won’t change so you won’t have version compatibility issues, but you’ll also be left with several month to year old software that wasn’t even up to date when this version released, but at least you don’t have to think about the compatibility issues!”

Debian aims for rock solid stability

To be clear, Debian “stability” refers to “unchanging packages”, not “doesn’t crash.” Debian would rather ship a known bug for a year than update the package if it’s not explicitly a security bug (and then only certain packages).

So if you have a crash in Debian, you will always have that crash until the next version of debian a year or so from now. That’s not what I’d consider “stable” but rather “consistent”

Definitely make sure you think through all the physical security implications of having your house automatically unlock in any scenario.

Have the house auto unlock when getting home on a bicycle, sounds convenient until, as you point out, they could get stolen and now the thief has a convenient way to unlock your house. So you would not want that.

You would definitely not want the house to STAY unlocked when something like a tag is in range. If your kid is home alone, you want them to be able to re-lock the house (or in general, you want to be able to lock your house while the kid is home).

Whatever solution you wind up with, you are going to be trading physical security for ease of use (and complicated fun task). Be safe. Make sure the tradeoffs are actually thought through and worth it.

Hard to unlock the house based on media playing if the kid is outside though.

Oh look. Debian changed the keepassxc package and now the keepassxc repo is getting all the bug reports for it. Their stance is “it will go away in a year or so”

Regardless of whether or not it is a good idea, it’s undeniable that Debian makes a lot of decisions that negatively impact their upstream. And since it’s someone else’s problem, oh well.

There is a reason upstream repo maintainers wind up angry about problems that someone else caused.

In pineapple express they call it “the dopest dope I ever smoked”… But I now realize that movie is almost 20 years old.

A lot of people don’t know this though. They think it is the “won’t fall over” type. They hear “use debian over ubuntu, because it’s more stable” or “use debian for servers, because it’s more stable” and think it means “You want uptime, so you dont want something crashing”. So when they see a bug, it is concerning to them. A distro focused on not falling over must super care about reducing crashes, and don’t realize the exact opposite is actually true. The bug was fixed a long time ago, but you don’t get it because “don’t change” is more important than “don’t crash”.

If the bug is in a popular package (ie, a super common screensaver) in a very popular distro (and a lot of people have chosen the distro because they think it has less bugs than others), I can imagine the maintainer getting fed up with the bug reports for a bug that was already fixed.

Most people I’ve seen on Lemmy understands that “stable” means “unchanging”… But every person I’ve talked to outside of lemmy, thinks it means “less bugs”. So clearly it’s a very big misunderstanding (Which is basically confirmed by the fact that xscreensaver gets so many invalid bug reports that they felt necessary to do this.)

If you received constant complaints from users about bugs that you had resolved years ago, but package maintainers refused to package, you’d probably get sick of it too.

Daniel Stenberg (author of curl) has blog posts about how everyone in the world uses curl, and as a result include the curl license in their readme, which means he gets mail from people upset about their car not working.

Steam had a big thing recently because the snap of Steam is not official. But yet, they get a TON of bug reports for things that are only broken in the snap.

I imagine having the same conversation of “That bug is already fixed as of 8 months ago” “Well how do I install the latest release?” “I dunno, talk to your distro about that” on a super regular basis, it starts being something that is incredibly infuriating. No one wants to take the anger of aggressive upset people, especially when the fault lies with someone else. He has asked Debian to stop shipping out of date versions of his software in the past. But because open source, they are not obligated to, so he has very limited ways to protect his own interests.

Your issue sounds like it’s with Debian for shipping incredibly out of date software and putting jwz into this position in the first place and not with jwz.

This is a daily reminder that “stable” means “unchanging” and in no way refers to the quality of the code. It doesn’t mean “won’t fall over”… That’s a different type of stable which debian stable absolutely does not guarantee.

A bug in debian will remain present in debian until the next update a year from now. If the bug breaks your workflow, then find a new workflow or a new distro.

Hopefully. The thing about social platforms is that if everyone else leaves and doesnt tell them to fuck right off, it can get lonely. Xmpp still exists and im sure some people use it successfully, but its definitely not the same scale it once was

The internet and cloud points are my favorite. Specifically the fact that those things are out of the picture.

No VLAN configuration necessary. The hub is “the VLAN”. They literally can’t phone home because they have no route to the internet, with no extra setup necessary. For WiFi devices, I have to make sure they’re connecting to the right VLAN and controlled properly, and if I misconfigure something, they are phoning home or joining a botnet.

(This stops being as applicable if you have a sketchy hub you don’t trust, but I trust deconz and ZHA fine enough in this context).

Because of how starlink works, they have to aim satellites specifically at areas for data to flow. They have the ability to turn regions on and off (ie, satellites over China).

They know exactly where the transceivers are and based on movement patterns, probably which side they are on.

Unless he is feeding that position data to the Ukrainian military, he knows exactly who is using them and letting it happen. He didnt sell them the dishes, but he lets them be used.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKegmu0V75s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IjUryQOlgk

They love taking money and then not delivering products in a timely manner and they take several months to issue refunds as well. Probably among other things.

bluffing a threat to the plane by snapchatting your friend would be a weird move. No one on the plane even knew a “threat” was made.

It seems like “we have no details at all about the threat (because it wasn’t actually credible), so let’s just be prepared for every situation” is the logic.

But that wasnt the threat. They were going to stop him from blowing up the plane by… blowing up the plane.

Yes. And that is the point of ads. And we can agree that it’s not great to manipulate consumers.

but “you can never save by buying something. I save if I don’t buy” is NOT identifying the presupposition, and therefore not rejecting the presupposition. It’s just stating that the original statement has a logical flaw. Which it doesn’t have any logical flaws if you accept that language has subtext.

“I dislike that the implication is that you can only compare to buying at full price, when there are other options like not buying (which saves 100% vs full price)” identifies the presupposition and rejects it.

For sure. An implied sense of false urgency is the point of sales in general. There’s all sorts of psychology around manipulating people into buying things.

I just think that acting as if there is some sort of grammatical error or gap in logic is missing the fact that in language, people imply things. And an ad implying “you’re going to buy this, so you better do it while costs less” isn’t too hard to follow.

You’re playing a semantics game though. The assumption is that you ARE going to buy the thing. Society has decided that “save 77%” is a valid shortening of “save 77% compared to buying at full price” because that is the most logical comparison to make. Yes. “Save 77% compared to not buying the item” makes no sense, but that is clearly not what is being implied here. Implying and inferring things is a normal part of human communication, and refusing to accept the implications doesn’t make you clever.

That said, I agree that “pay 77% less to not even actually own the product that we will eventually lose the license to” is dumb.