For many systems out there, /bin and /lib are no longer a thing. Instead, they are just a link to /usr/bin and /usr/lib. And for some systems even /sbin has been merged with /bin (in turn linked to /usr/bin).

Not just Linux… 99% of the time you see something weird in the computing world, the reason is going to be “because history.”

The C developers are the ones with the ageist mindset.

The Rust developers certainly are not the ones raising the point “C has always worked, so why should we use another language?” which ignores the objective advantages of Rust and is solely leaning on C being the older language.

They very rarely have memory and threading issues

It’s always the “rarely” that gets you. A program that doesn’t crash is awesome, a program that crashes consistently is easy to debug (and most likely would be caught during development anyway), but a program that crashes only once a week? Wooo boy.

People vastly underestimate the value Rust brings by ensuring the same class of bugs will never happen.

It really depends.

If I know I will never open the file in the terminal or batch process it in someways, I will name it using Common Case: “Cool Filename.odt”.

Anything besides that, snake case. Preferably prefixed with current date: “20240901_cool_filename”

I recall reading somewhere the earlier compilers had a hard limit on the length of function names, due to memory constraints.

People back then just grossly underestimated how big computing was going to be.

The human brain is not built to predict exponential growths!

One of the issues at hand is that X11, the predecessor of Wayland, does not have a standardized way to tell applications what scale they should use. Applications on X11 get the scale from environment variables (completely bypassing X11), or from Xft.dpi, or by providing in-application settings, or they guess it using some unorthodox means, or simply don’t scale at all. It’s a huge mess overall.

It is one of the more-or-less fundamentally unfixable parts of the protocol, since it wants everything to be on the same coordinate space (i.e. 1 pixel is 1 pixel everywhere, which is… quite unsuitable for modern systems.)

Wayland does operate like how you say it and applications supporting Wayland will work properly in HiDPI environments.

However a lot of people and applications are still on X11 due to various reasons.

LoDPI applications are either tiny sized or upscaled (= blurriness), aren’t they?

Yeah I get the display server part. What I meant was that 200% scaling gets you 1920x1080 logical resolution on HiDPI applications – LoDPI applications continue to be blurry just as if you set your actual resolution to 1080p, but HiDPI applications will enjoy the enhanced visual acuity.

Even on smaller screens like the 14" ones, the quality of very high resolution (e.g. 4K) is still quite visible IMO, especially when it comes to text rendering. But it could very well just be my eyes.

It’s not even Linux’s fault. Plenty of apps support HiDPI on Linux.

It’s the developers who still think that LoDPI-only is still acceptable when it’s already 2024.

Isn’t scaling to 200% the same as lowering the resolution to half? And you lose the high DPI for apps that support it too.

Agreed. HiDPI is the way to go and we should appreciate Framework for putting that in their laptops instead of continuing the use of shitty 1366x768 screens.

Xorg is the reason why OP is facing the scaling issues. OP, try to force the apps to run on native Wayland if they support it but don’t default to it. The Wayland page on Arch wiki has instructions on that. Immensely improved my HiDPI experience.

Agencies that are still living in the 90s…

The modern electronic devices are far more railroaded than it was back in the day tho.

Want to download an application? There’s the App Store. No need to download random .exes from sketchy websites (and learn what a “computer virus” is the hard way)

Downloaded a picture? It’s instantly inside your gallery. Back then we needed to find a folder called “Download” or “My Documents” using something called the Explorer!

iPhone and Android made a lot of things dumber and easier to take in, but I feel like it had a detrimental effect on digital literacy.

I use IPv6 exclusively for my homelab. The pros:

• No more holepunching kludge with solutions like ZeroTier or Tailscale, just open a port and you are pretty much good to go.

• The CGNAT gateway of my ISP tends to be overloaded during the holiday seasons, so using IPv6 eliminates an unstability factor for my lab.

• You have a metric sh*t ton of addressing space. I have assigned my SSH server its own IPv6 address, my web server another, my Plex server yet another, … You get the idea. The nice thing here is that even if someone knows about the address to my SSH server, they can’t discover my other servers through port scanning, as was typical in IPv4 days.

• Also, because of the sheer size of the addressing space, people simply can’t scan your network.

This is why I try my damnedest not to write in weakly typed languages.

string + object makes no logical sense, but the language will be like “'no biggie, you probably meant string + string so let’s convert the object to string”! And so all hell breaks loose when the language’s assumption is wrong.

Private addresses don’t necessitate NAT. IPv6 also allows private addresses in the form of fd00::/8, like fd00:face:b00b:1::1.

.local is already used by mDNS

I have a 64-bit computer, it can address up to 18.4 exabytes, but my computer only has 32GB, so I will never use the vast majority that address space. Am I “wasting” it?

You are using the addressing bits in the form of virtual memory. Right now. Unless you run a unikernel system, then in that case you could be right, but I doubt it.

Anyway, this is apples and oranges. IP addresses are hierarchical by design (so you have subnets of subnets of subnets of …), memory addresses are flat for the most part, minus some x86 shenanigans.

Yes they are all “used” but you don’t need them. We are not using 2^128 ip addresses in the world.

But we do need them! The last 64 bits of your IPv6 addresses are randomized for privacy purposes, it’s either that or your MAC address is used for them. We may not be using those addresses simultaneously but they certainly are used.

Despite that, there still are plenty of empty spaces in IPv6, that’s true. But they will still be used in the future should the opportunity arise. Any “wastage” is artificial, not a built-in deficiency of the protocol. Whereas if we restricted the space to 40 bits, there will be 24 bits wasted forever no matter how.