apt_install_coffee

What you're after, transparent wifi roaming, is actually mostly handled by the client; what you need is wifi access points that don't get in the way.

I don't have much experience with new OpenWRT supporting products, but the kicker is you only need one of them. If you have multiple routers, they will require some setup to play nice with each other. An "Access point" is just the wifi provider, can be hooked up to provide whatever the one router manages, and are generally cheaper than a router.

To that end, I'd suggest a single router, and multiple access points. I do this with Ubiquiti access points in my home, their PoE has been nice and they have been pretty "setup once and forget" for a few years now. I'm sure there are some other brands that'll do well; Ruckus and Mikrotik come to mind.

1. Get kicked from freedesktop for fostering a toxic community.
2. Ditch wlroots for your own compositor.
3. Shit on other compositors in your spare time.
4. Tell people they should just be plugging into Hyprland instead of rolling their own compositor.

Man if I was concerned about sinking the time to make a configuration for the compositor with a bus factor of 1 man-child, and a toxic community; I can't imagine anybody investing the time to make a compositor is going to want to hitch themselves to that cart.

The compositor is really solid and makes for a great user experience but I'll be fucked if every word vaxry writes doesn't make me want to move to sway or niri.

Nixpkgs has more and newer packages than the aur.

The initial time to get shit done is longer; you can't simply make install, but honestly you shouldn't have been doing so on arch anyway.

Making your own derivation is much easier than making your own PKGBUILD and should be considered in those terms because you're not just shoving some binary into /usr/bin for it to explode later when glibc updates.

When things fuck up, reverting to your previous config is at worst a reboot away.

I have much less time than I used to, so moving from arch to Nixos has prevented the time otherwise wasted in an arch-chroot trying to fix issues like the kernel upgrading past what the zfs-dkms supports.

If you're using specialised proprietary tools, working them in with Nix can be an absolute nightmare, but I use a debian container for them.

It's unlikely; convincing people to buy two of your GPUs instead of one of your competitors has always been a hard sell, even when Radeon and NVIDIA we're kneck and kneck market share wise.

Combine that with the fact that crossfire is not a solved problem, whether you do it spacially, temporally, or you offload Async tasks to the second GPU you always run into the NUMA problem (shove all that data down the PCIE bus fast enough to stitch together well within 1 frame is a tall order) and the results is terrible tearing and super niche bugs so it's just not worth the cost of support.

Developer support could help, but why would they? A lot more work for <1% of their player base?

Moving some packages (especially libraries) onto an unstable branch while keeping others back on a stable one. It probably won't fuck you immediately, but when it does it'll be a bastard to diagnose because you will have forgotten what you did.

My parents treated my device access something they had to keep a keen eye on. They were good at manually making sure I wasn't sitting around having my brain rot, but their spying on what I was doing into my teens left me with some trust issues.

They briefly tried to use technological solutions to control my access and monitor me, but all that served was to make me very good at circumventing them. Outsourcing parenting to a computer program doesn't work, and kids notice when you try.

They're not trivializing, just noting that the different things you need to discuss for kernel development compared with other work. It is very different in a lot of ways, and does shape your perspective. I also find it interesting.

For the same reason spoken languages often have semantic structures that make a literal translation often cumbersome and incorrect, translating nontrivial code from one language into another without being a near expert in both langauges, as well as being an expert in the project in question, can lead to differences in behaviour varying from "it crashes and takes down the OS with it", to "it performs worse".

A rather overly simplistic view of filesystem design.

More complex data structures are harder to optimise for pretty much all operations, but I'd suggest the overwhelmingly most important metric for performance is development time.

Yes, but note that neither the Linux foundation nor OpenZFS are going to put themselves in legal risk on the word of a stack exchange comment, no matter who it's from. Even if their legal teams all have no issue, Oracle has a reputation for being litigious and the fact that they haven't resolved the issue once and for all despite the fact they could suggest they're keeping the possibility of litigation in their back pocket (regardless of if such a case would have merit).

Canonical has said they don't think there is an issue and put their money where their mouth was, but they are one of very few to do so.

Opengear in Brisbane; development teams often use Linux.

Brand new anything will not show up with amazing performance, because the primary focus is correctness and features secondary.

Premature optimisation could kill a project's maintainability; wait a few years. Even then, despite Ken's optimism I'm not certain we'll see performance beating a good non-cow filesystem; XFS and EXT4 have been eeking out performance for many years.