areyouevenreal

That might be true but it's not what happened at that specific conference. I beg you watch the clip to see what happened. Also fuck programmers with the attitude you describe. It's been proven wrong over and over again with so many C memory safety vulnerabilities.

That to me sounds like exactly the reason why developers like the above have left. They are having to take on the burden of gently letting down other devs who are angry over a simple misunderstanding. A misunderstanding that wouldn't have happened if they had been listening or bothered to ask first before jumping to conclusions. Imagine someone heckles you on stage and you have to respond kindly. I certainly wouldn't. If someone had listened to my talk, misinterpreted it, then heckled me over it you can bet I would be angry and would respond in kind. To then see this misinformation being spread again would drive me nuts. I can see why they left.

The bottom line for me is that Rust devs who work on this stuff for free shouldn't be getting hounded by C devs just for asking for proper documentation that frankly they should have provided in the first place. I say this as someone who is skeptical of Rust for various reasons.

Unfortunately there are a lot of problems created by using C in the kernel, and having all of this done manually. Many kernel vulnerabilities including several severe ones have been due to issues with memory management. Even the whitehouse has spoken on these issues related to C. Rust has been proven to be comparable to C in terms of performance, sometimes even faster. So it doesn't make a great deal of sense to keep using C for new projects.

That all being said Rust has had its own issues. There was a recent vulnerability in older versions of cargo the Rust package manager for instance. It's a somewhat new language so obviously teething issues are to be expected, and it might be too soon to use Rust for mission critical systems. It's also a harder language to learn and understand, so that makes adopting it more difficult especially for very experienced C developers like those who work on the Linux kernel. It might be better to wait and see what other languages like Zig and Carbon manage to do, but those are even newer and will take more time to actually be production ready.

I think the point of redox is more than just rewriting Linux in Rust. Architecturally they are very different. Redox uses the more modern microkernel approach, whereas Linux is a modular monolith. There are advantages and disadvantages to both designs. They are actually polar opposites in fact. The compromise is something called a hybrid kernel which is used by Windows NT.

This isn't a disagreement. One person is stating something incorrect. You can disagree on opinion, but facts are facts. The person being referred to here isn't asking others to learn Rust, they are just asking for more information about the already existing C code so that they can write their Rust code to interoperate with it. This misunderstanding is exactly why that developer was getting heckled on stage, and is the reason why now one has left the project. I would appreciate it if you didn't make a misunderstanding sound like a valid opinion. Enough damage has already been done.

COSMIC itself has a similar design to macOS

I don't know why you are getting downvoted to hell. This is actually correct. They put the second connector on there for a reason. People including myself have done the maths on this before and it's all above board. Only fringe cases involving power transients, out-of-spec cards, and obviously overclocking should actually make this a problem. Even then the 12VHPWR uses the same current density if not more than a daisy chained 8 pin setup.

This is straight up wrong. There are people here who have done that maths for you, if you look hard enough.

This diagram was probably created by a specific PSU builder and intended to illustrate their recommendations for their PSUs, not as a general rule.

Yeah this person you are replying to is wrong. Using two lines where possible is a best practice, but in most cases isn't necessary at all. This diagram was created by a specific PSU manufacturer I think, and should only pertain to their PSUs.

Not all PSUs even have a second cable. Mine sure doesn't.

Technically it's fine to use daisy chained connectors. People get into trouble though with badly built power supplies, extreme overclocking, or cards like the R9 295X2 that blatantly violate the specifications.

Older PSUs sometimes have trouble with new GPUs. It generally happens because new cards have large power transients that the older spec didn't take into account. Sometimes running a second line fixes this for one reason or another, but not always. 12VHPWR actually uses similar current per wire or per cross section area of wire as a daisy chained setup, if not a little more.

I am using a RX 6700 XT on one cable as well and it's perfectly fine. If your PSU has a second cable you can run that to be sure, but if not like mine don't worry about it. It's only certain corner cases like extreme overclocking, or certain cards and PSUs that violate the specifications that actually cause issues. The Radeon R9 295X2 would be an example of this. 12VHPWR actually runs a similar amount of current per wire, with an even smaller connector, as a daisy chained 8 pin setup. You should not use third party splitters though if you want to be safe.

Yes, this is the way. I've had to do the maths manually without one of those calculators before, but people still wouldn't believe me.

Best advice is to always do what your PSU maker recommends. If they put the connector on there it probably means they want you to use it.