I feel like setting up a new machine is just the easiest to explain.

Personally, I find dotfiles messy, as you often just want to change one or two settings, but you always carry along the whole file with all kinds of irrelevant other settings. This also makes it impractical to diff two versions of those dotfiles, especially when programs write semi-permanent settings into there.

I guess, your mileage will vary depending on what programs or desktop environment you use.
For example, I love KDE, but they really don’t do a good job keeping the config files clean. Nix Plasma-Manager generally fixes that, and for example allows defining the contents of the panel in a readable form.

Personally, the stepping stone I needed to know about is Nix Home-Manager, which basically allows you to manage your dotfiles independent of the distro. From what I understand, if I do switch to NixOS, I’ll continue using this code with just some minor tweaks.

But yeah, I agree with the verdict in the post. I like it a lot, but I would not have made it past the initial learning curve, if I didn’t happen to be a software engineer. Sysadmins will probably be able to figure out how to put it to use, too. But it’s just not for non-technical Linux users.

It looks like a guitar pick to me. 🙃

Yeah, sometimes I wonder if they do these bad names for the free publicity of people complaining about them. But then there’s plenty examples where the name isn’t just clunky, but rather actively confusing for potential users…

His job is to spread lies and fear, so no reason for him to say something different, if he would know reality…

Yeah, after writing that comment, I was thinking, if I do promote it, that means there’s a certain expectation that I’ll integrate or implement functionality that others want. At that point, it becomes less of an egoistic thing. And I’ll be doing more communication and whatnot, therefore less programming.

Maybe that’s the puzzle piece that OP is missing? If you don’t promote it, you have practically no extra work compared to developing it under a proprietary license. In fact, it often reduces the workload, if you can just post it publicly without having to secure the repo.
And you don’t incur costs from giving it away either. So, if you make sure to only put in the work that you want to put in in the first place, you have no disadvantage from publishing it with an open-source license.

Many people enjoy programming, you know. I’ve got like ten reasonably-sized projects and I haven’t posted about them anywhere. Because I built them to scratch my own itch, both in terms of functionality I could use and the itch to build something, no matter what it is. I’m not wasting my time, because I’m doing something I enjoy.

It is similar to Bluesky, yes. They both got a lot of inspiration from Twitter (before Musk turned it to shit/X).

And I would say that the discussions are more shallow than on Lemmy. Even though Mastodon has a higher character limit than Twitter and many Mastodon instances effectively remove the character limit, it’s still fundamentally a platform for shortform interactions. Infodumping is rarely seen, because you need to create a silly number of chained messages.

On the flipside, though, you get to know people. I do appreciate the time I spent on Mastodon, because of that. It’s a very different perspective as not everything is about discussing cold hard facts, but rather also people’s hobbies and struggles and whatnot.

Ah, neat. My phone speakers are far too silent, so I’ll have to fiddle with this in the other direction.

For those who don’t get it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stationery

Oh yeah, I’m in favor of using type hints. People here are also saying that Pyright is more useful, which I haven’t used yet.

I was involved as the unlucky bastard supposed to sprinkle software engineering on top of a Python project 2+ years ago, and I just remember how much I understood right then and there why Python devs thought static typing was cumbersome. Felt like I had to write Java again, except it also didn’t work half the time.

Interesting. If it’s only in the type checker, can IDEs/editors correctly show the type information of inferred types then? Do they call the type checker themselves to retrieve that info?

Yeah, I only used Mypy so far. I thought it was inherent to the language spec, not the type checker.

I guess, some of your colleagues might have also just used Mypy so far, though…

It feels more solid to have a complex program covered by tests, yes, but how can this be confirmed in an objective way? And if it can, for which kind of software is this valid? Are the same methodologies adequate for web programming as for industrial embedded devices or a text editor?

Worth noting here that tests should primarily serve as a (self-checking) specification, i.e. documentation for what the code is supposed to do.
The more competent your type checking is and the better the abstractions are, the less you need to rely on tests to find bugs in the initial version of the code. You might be able to write code, fix the compiler errors and then just have working code (assuming your assumptions match reality). You don’t strictly need tests for that.

But you do need tests to document what the intended behaviour is and conversely which behaviours are merely accidental, so that you can still change the code after your initial working version.
In particular, tests also check the intended behaviour of all the code parts you might not have realized you’ve changed, so that you don’t need to understand the entire codebase every time you want to make a small change.

To be fair, Python doesn’t have type inference, so the type hints are quite obnoxious, and the type checkers for Python are also not as reliable as in languages with native static typing (even if that is often caused by libraries not providing type hints).

I find ants and bees and such interesting in this regard. They work together more seamlessly than humans do and arguably have a higher form of sociality.

Especially in Western cultures, we humans like to think of the individual and compare ourselves to the individual of other species. But that is a logical fallacy.
Are you smarter than an ant? Sure. But are you smarter than a human-sized ant hive? That’s a far trickier question to answer…

Those Spectacle changes look good. The old UI made some amount of sense, if the primary use-case was taking complete screenshots, but even for that, there’s probably a single shortcut to do that directly.
And I do find, I generally want a smaller cutout these days, because you can just fit more stuff onto modern displays, some of which is going to irrelevant.

I could imagine that they didn’t want to do something called “Destiny 3”, because people would expect that to be better than Destiny 2, which is virtually impossible, if you’re gonna start over from scratch, with how many years of development have gone into Destiny 2 by now…

Yeah, the wording is confusing. A long time ago, there was no paid software, there was only software where you got the source code and other software where e.g. it was pre-installed on some hardware and the manufacturer didn’t want to give the source code.

In that time, a whole movement started fighting for software freedom, so they called their software “free”.

Well, it didn’t feel like I’m tweaking to my needs (that came afterwards on top), it rather felt like I’m just undoing design decisions that someone made to cater to their specific needs.

And I named the time mainly to give an idea of how much there was to tweak. My main problems were:

• That I could not undo some of those unusual design decisions.
• That it doesn’t exactly make the system more robust when you need lots of non-default settings.