• 0 Posts
  • 24 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 25th, 2023

help-circle


  • KubeRoot@discuss.tchncs.detoTechnology@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 days ago

    Yes, apple should allow that, and Sony should allow that. Your “gotcha” seems pretty stupid, because “allow” doesn’t mean “facilitate” - it’s not Apple’s responsibility to make those things work on their devices, but Apple is going out of their way to prevent individuals from making those things happen on their own.


  • If you license your project under GPL, and somebody submits some code (like through a pull request) that ends up in the library you use, you are now also bound by the GPL license, meaning you also have to publish the source of any derivatives.

    The way to avoid it is to use something like a CLA, requiring every contributor to sign an agreement giving you special rights to their code, so you can ignore the GPL license in relation to the code they wrote. This works, but is obviously exploitative, taking rights to contributions while giving out less.

    It also means if somebody forks the project, you can’t pull in their changes (if you can’t meet GPL terms, of course), unlike with MIT, where by default everybody can make their own versions, public or private, for any purpose.

    Though it’s worth noting, if you license your code under MIT, a fork can still add the GPL license on top, which means if you wanted to pull in their changes you’d be bound to both licenses and thus GPL terms. I believe this is also by design in the GPL license, to give open-source an edge, though that can be a bit of a dick move when done to a good project, since it lets the GPL fork pull in changes from MIT versions without giving back to them.


  • I think the trick might be that nothing is stopping you from using more than one 32-bit integer to represent addresses and the kernel maps memory for processes in the first place, so as long as each process individually can work within the 32-bit address space, it’s possible for the kernel to allocate that extra memory to processes.

    I do suppose on some level the architecture, as in the CPU and/or motherboard need to support retrieving memory using more than 32 bits of address space, which would also be what somebody else replied, and seems to be available since 1999 on both AMD and Intel.






  • Doesn’t change the voting situation. Since your votes need to be seen by other instances, Lemmy needs a mechanism for federating votes. Since instances are untrusted, there needs to be some way of preventing manipulation. Thus, AFAIK, Lemmy simply shares your votes across instances, letting each one tally them up. As a side effect, any server admin of an instance you can interact with can also get a list of all your votes.


  • Dual booting is problematic, as mentioned you’re messing with your partitions and could mess up your windows partition, but also windows can, unprompted, mess up your Linux bootloader. As long as you’re careful with partitions and know how to fix your bootloader from a live image, there’s no real issue, but it’s worth keeping in mind.

    By the way, I recommend rEFInd for the bootloader when dual booting, it doesn’t require configuration and will detect bootable systems automatically.

    A VM sounds like a good idea to try a few things out, but do keep in mind performance can suffer, and you might especially run into issues with things like GPU virtualization. If you want to properly verify if things work and work well enough, you’ll want to test them from a live system.

    As a final note, you can give your VM access to your SSD/HDD - if you set that up properly, you can install and boot your Linux install inside a VM, and later switch to booting it natively. You still have the risk of messing up your partitions in that case, but it can be nice so you can look things up on your host system while setting up Linux in a VM.




  • I got the impression that the PolyMC situation was quite different, with that developer masking it and doing a minority of the work, but after one change made by the rest of the developers they snapped, used their control over the repository to remove the rest of the maintainers and take sole control over the repository.

    I was aware of some shenanigans and hostility from PolyMC and never used it, but I got the impression there were no major outward signs before that happened?







  • Fundamentally, the repository you have on GitHub is the same thing as the repository you have on your computer when you clone it. Pulling and pushing are shorthands for synchronizing commits between the two repositories, but you could also synchronize them directly with somebody else who cloned the repository. As somebody mentioned, you can also just host the same repository on two servers, and push to both of them.

    The issue is that git doesn’t include convenient features like issues, pull requests, CI, wikis, etc., and by extensions, those aren’t included in your local repository, so if GitHub takes them down, you don’t have a copy.

    An extra fun fact is that git can be considered a blockchain. It’s a distributed ledger of immutable commits, each one representing a change in state relative to the previous one. Everybody who clones a repository gets a copy of its entire history and fast forwards through the changes to calculate the current state.