That is a very optimistic view! I decided to make a presentation in OpenOffice recently instead of Google Slides. It actually couldn't even show my bullet points in the right order. It revealed them like 1, 3, 2.
I guess you can make it work and the sovereignty & financial savings for a large number of users is maybe worth the pain, but let's not pretend the Linux desktop is really close to Windows/Office in terms of quality and reliability.
Gotta agree on the name. Please choose meaningful names especially for low level components like drivers, libraries and CLI tools. It's fine for end-user facing applications to have unique names like Blender, Krita, Inkscape, Chrome, etc. But nobody wants to have to look up what the name of random system packages is.
Corecursive easily. It's actually properly produced and very well presented. Not one of those rambling unscripted chats.
This is deliberately not allowed in order to ensure that Linux remains exclusive for nerds.
Ah yeah I agree. Misread your comment.
I disagree. You can write a lot of high quality Python code (yeah it exists) before you need to use inheritance. If you're reaching for inheritance as the solution to all complexity, GoF-style, then you're doing it wrong.
It's an occasionally useful tool that has its place, not something you should instinctively reach for.
WebP was the first widely supported format to support lossy transparency. It's worth it for that alone.
They mean measure first, then optimize.
This is also bad advice. In fact I would bet money that nobody who says that actually always follows it.
Really there are two things that can happen:
You are trying to optimise performance. In this case you obviously measure using a profiler because that's by far the easiest way to find places that are slow in a program. It's not the only way though! This only really works for micro optimisations - you can't profile your way to architectural improvements. Nicholas Nethercote's posts about speeding up the Rust compiler are a great example of this.
Writing new code. Almost nobody measures code while they're writing it. At best you'll have a CI benchmark (the Rust compiler has this). But while you're actually writing the code it's mostly find just to use your intuition. Preallocate vectors. Don't write O(N^2) code. Use HashSet etc. There are plenty of things that good programmers can be sure enough are the right way to do it that you don't need to constantly second guess yourself.
Do you realize how old assembly language is?
Do you? These instructions were created in 2011.
It predates hard disks by ten years and coincided with the invention of the transistor.
I'm not sure what the very first assembly language has to do with RISC-V assembly?
flawed tests are worse than no tests
I never said you should use flawed tests. You ask AI to write some tests. You READ THEM and probably tweak them a little. You think "this test is basic but better than nothing and it took me 30 seconds. You commit it.
It absolutely is a challenge. Before AI there weren't any other systems that could do crappy automated testing.
I dunno what you mean by "it's not AI". You write the tests using AI. It's AI.
Windows 11 IoT LTSC is anything but bloated and clunky. Best OS I've used.