shy_mia

It sure is

As long as two binaries are compiled with the same version of the Rust compiler, they are ABI compatible. Even if the compiler version differs, I've found that changes to the ABI are fairly uncommon. Furthermore, anything exposed through the C ABI is stable, so the problem can be circumvented if needed. It's not the most ergonomic solution, admittedly, but with some compromises dynamic linking is perfectly feasible.

No that's the issue: it's too permissive. It allows corporations or individuals to redistribute and modify the code as closed source, which isn't desirable for this kind of project.

Yeah the licensing is a bit worrying, but it's not a language issue.

No, it started as a Mozilla project; it's been independent for a long time now.
If anything I expect Mozilla to be among the smaller contributors nowadays from a purely monetary standpoint.

Waiting for the Rust haters to get unjustifiedly mad again...

Vegemite artillery when?

Does that headline not sound absurd to you?

Right, that's exactly my point. There's no argument to be made about Linux "not being ready" in terms of hardware support because in the worst case scenario it's not any worse than Windows, and those worst case scenarios are few and far between.

Now, in terms of software parity, sure. There's quite a bit of stuff that won't run on Wine yet and doesn't have alternatives, but this discussion was purely about hardware support and that's solid nowadays.

I've found it to be just the opposite. I've had so many more issues on Ubuntu and Debian derivatives than any other distro out there. Both in terms of hardware support and stability, ironically.

Bigger doesn't necessarily mean better, otherwise Windows would be good.

• apt is atrocious and will nuke your system every once in a while if you're not careful when installing even the most trivial packages.
• Snaps are objectively worse than any other packaging format.
• The software is never up to date and you have to go scavenge for drivers and updated kernels otherwise stuff is just broken.

There are much greener pastures out there, even if a little more niche.
Arch if for tinkerers, no doubt, but Fedora is just as simple to use as Ubuntu. The support is great since it's backed by Red Hat and has a sizeable following. I never had issues finding what I was looking for. The only caveat is that it's for newer hardware; not cutting edge mind you, but it may not be the best choice for a 2009 laptop. Anything that's at most 10 years old though I'd expect to just work honestly, maybe with minimal tinkering.

The kind of people who would install Linux on their PC are the same people who'll reinstall Windows to remove all the bloat manufacturers put on their laptops by default.

Whether or not the basics work well enough to go scavenge for drivers is irrelevant. The fact that I have to do it means it's no better than modern Linux in that regard. It'll boot and in 90% of cases it'll just work, when it doesn't you'll need to install some drivers.

Realistically some kind of home server, but only if energy is cheap where you live.