I've been forced to use Ubuntu 22.04 and 24.04 at my job for the past 4 years, and the longer I use it, the more it makes me wish I was using OpenBSD w/ xfce.
567 karma · joined September 22, 2025
Do with that what you will. Despite seeing you as just some annoying weirdo committing some petty form of shitting where I eat, I'm just trying to arm you with knowledge that might better your life. In the process of you becoming less miserable, you'll also be less of a detriment to everyone around you.
Arguing with an indifferent brick wall is not what a fella would consider resilient or emotionally mature behavior. Frankly, any halfway competent bonafide troll would get a kick out of knowing he or she played you into wasting precious time out of your own life.
If you want to make the world a better place, just be a friend to people. Just being someone you would consider a good friend adds incalculable value to the world, especially in world now full of people single-mindedly farming for attention on social media. Application protocols become obsolete, but people remember how you treated them, and it influences how they treat people in a never-ending chain... At least that's my $0.02.
It was good talking to you, take care man!
That's what every partisan hack says before they shove their culture war politics down your throat. Some people out in the real world get laid and just can't be bothered to hear your opinion about the race-swapped Snow White remake, regardless of whether you loved it or hated it.
I'm not doing it because I'm Bill Maher and I'm offering the solutions to all of society's problems for free. I'm doing it because I want an HTTP server that does just what I need to do and is not a pain in my ass for my small set of use cases. I've use OpenBSD and its httpd for a couple years now, and I want to fix the only real problem I have with it because I know it's not hard to do. If they won't take my change, the worst they can do is say no and leave me to maintain my own fork in perpetuity.
As for group identity, giving altruistically and being part of something bigger than oneself are completely separate if you really dig into it. Those young women who joined Charles Manson's murder cult were certainly part of something bigger than themselves, while self-employed people who donate a portion of their wealth or adopt children out of the infamous foster care system are not.
I'm not saying group identity is necessarily bad, I'm just making my case that it's neither good nor bad. I would make the case for individualism as paradoxically foundational to creating the kind of society that creates people of stronger moral character, but that's just idle and unprofitable philosophizing, and any schmuck can wax philosophical and sound intelligently profound.
"If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life." -Henry David Thoreau
However, I will not devalue the work of software engineering by giving away solutions to difficult problems for free and fostering a culture of self-entitlement toward software engineers. Treating prosperous and purposeful existences as conflicting aspirations is an unusually pernicious self-deception. Go get yours, I want you to get paid for your work. You deserve to get paid for the value you create.
Besides that, it's naive to think that if you give up the portion of value you can capture, that it will go back to the people you're really trying to help. In reality, when you publish really good open source work that mega-cap tech companies can use at scale, they are the ones who capture the lion's share of the value you created rather than the end users they are data mining.
"Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn." -Deuteronomy 25:4
If even Jews and Christians- for as much as the self-abasing communists on this site resent them- can concede that even a lowly beast of the field is entitled to a portion of the value it creates, then how much more deserving is dignified man of his recompense?
People act like you're saying Disney should be able to hold a copyright on Mickey Mouse for over 100 years.
Calling it a "rug pull" when the creator of an open source project decides to stop giving away future work for free is a delusional level of self-entitlement.
(1) The previous releases are still open source. If you don't like it, fork the last free release and maintain it yourself.
(2) People deserve whatever the market is willing to pay for their work. See above.
Frankly, if D. Richard Hipp decided to stop giving away future versions of SQLite for free, I would be the first person to congratulate him for finally having the courage to put his foot down and say "my fellow committers and I deserve at least a few million dollars for 20 years of work making something that billions of machines rely upon."
To answer the unasked question here, their business model is indeed making money off of collecting and storing the data, then granting law enforcement access to it. The gross P&L from the cameras themselves is an afterthought.
For some reason, PhDs think they can treat every coworker without a PhD like a grad student, and that they can treat grad students like crap. I took a significant reduction in pay to work for academia thinking I was going to work in a great environment working on finding cancer cures alongside good people. At the end of this year, I'm leaving to finish some post-bacc classes and never working for a nonprofit again. Not just because of the culture, but also because I'm sick of working in a low-accountability environment where incompetence is tolerated and people optimize their work around visibility rather than things that really make the world better.
I know from experience that the private sector has just as many perverse incentives and just as much dysfunction, but at least I'll get paid 2-5x as much and retire sooner.
-Henry George
"I told you not to. You're the ones who wiped my phone. You owe me money for destroying my personal property."
I'm not saying you would get a check courtesy of Uncle Sam for your troubles, but the argument that you deceived authorities into destroying evidence is a lot weaker.
I might go with "do not enter 696969" instead because the stranger fiddling with your phone probably expects a your phone to do something funny, like load a shock site.
California is full of degenerate freaks who do way worse shit like going on naked group bike rides in full public view.
Bullies don't usually bully other people in front of their authority figures. Most "anti-bullying" policies in the past 25 years have the unintended consequence of fostering a more clever species of bully called the "crybully". People who are skilled at being assholes and manipulating authority figures into treating them as the victims.
In criminal law, increasing the odds of getting caught is statistically far more effective in decreasing the incidence of violent crime than increasing the punishment.
Other than that, I'm not particularly interested in the moralizing from either side about corporal punishment. Some problem children need mentorship, some just need consequences; most of it depends on their home life. Kids from abusive homes need to be moved to a safer environment and treated with therapy. Kids who are neglected or enabled by their parents need to learn that the world doesn't revolve around them and other people don't have to put up with their crap.
When the Packers upgrade their stadium and charge higher prices for tickets, I can promise you that they won't use the profits to buy back your shares or pay you a dividend.
"In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.""
-G.K. Chesterton
#1: What you consider a "language" is one with its own official runtime. By your logic, Javascript is not a language either because the interpreter is usually written in C++ (e.g. V8, spidermonkey).
#2: Dogfooding a compiler and a runtime is common practice because most people believe that it will help the makers of a language identify bugs in their implementation or identify undefined behavior in the very definition of their language. However, every language must bootstrap from another language: most languages bootstrapped from a compiler written in C. If you trace the lineage from compiler to compiler to ... compiler, you'll most likely find that the second C compiler ever written was written in C and the first compiler was written in some architecture's assembly language. The same still applies for the new, new language of C99 which is less than half the age of C. C is so mature that rooting out new undefined behaviors is no longer a significant concern.
#3: libc is not just a "language runtime", it's the interface into the OS kernel for most operating systems. The runtime for every "real language" as you describe it ultimately uses libc. It doesn't make sense to separate the functions in the C99 standard from the OS's own syscalls and special-purpose user land functions call C standard library functions, and C's standard library relies on the OS's special functions. If they were separate libraries, there would be a circular dependency.
Think of C not as "not a language" but as a language that serves the unusual purpose of being the foundation for nearly everything else.
You have a point on integer types being a mess, but we have stdint.h for that.
I don't normally call for people to get fired from their jobs, but this is so disgusting to anyone who takes even a modicum of pride in their contribution to society.
Surely, someone gets fired for dismissing a legitimate, easily exploited RCE using a simple plaintext HTTP MITM attack as a WONTFIX... Right???
From your reasoning, it also follows that using infix notation instead of Polish notation for arithmetic does absolutely nothing to lower the learning curve.
Just to clarify, I definitely wasn't saying "everything should be written in C" or even merely asking the question "why not just use C for game programming?". I don't even think requiring core utilities shipped with an OS, like sed and awk interpreters to be written in C is necessary, and I'm sure I'll be excommunicated for that elsewhere.
I was just making a more general comment about making a language look familiar in terms of basic grammar to minimize the time spent in the initial phase of the learning curve.
I completely understand wanting to go with some code that "looks like" python. More people know how to use Python than C, which is really only for embedded programmers and systems programmers.
Really, this is a nice game scripting language you have here. All the good languages were made by their author for their author.