I believe most of the original committers and maintainers of X are long gone, if still around they could very well be in their late 70s and 80s.
I would agree if you said many of the Wayland Developers people started with Xfee86. But I think the 'complexity' of X has to do with the fact no one of this generation fully understand why X11 did things the way they did, so Wayland was started. That is OK, but here we are.
I think the main issue is proprietary video companies did not to release their specs. I think if the Wayland people told the GPU Companies (like Nvidia) they will not support your hardware unless you release full specs, they would be further along.
OpenBSD is getting along fine without companies like Nvidia, I wish Linux and Wayland would tell these companies their GPUs will never be supported until full documentation is provided.
people may remember 'Y' from many years ago, AFAIK it was suppose to replace X, but never got to the point were Wayland is now.
>The original conceit behind Wayland is to only implement what is needed for a simple Linux desktop
And this is my biggest issue with Wayland. If it started out with portability in mind maybe I would give it a try. But I am sticking with X because it is fully usable on the BSDs.
You can always use a distro that doesn't use systemd or roll your own. Sure you lose the GNOME desktop environment, but if you ask me that's a net positive.
I agree, but this could be an issue with all distros based in the US. From my reading of these laws, I think the CA or NY or IL law could easily morph into a US National Law. So all US based distros may need to do something.
I saw an article that supporting these laws could cost a distro maintainer up to 10000 USD per year. Sadly I lost the link, but the article made a lot of sense to me. So, many small distos cannot afford even 1000/year, I think this law could kill almost all small Linux distros. That will probably leave only RHEL, SUSE and Ubuntu, maybe Debian, but they would need funds donated to them from Ubuntu.
If the distro is in another country like OpenBSD, they could just ignore the law(s). That of course assumes the "other" country does not replicate what is happening in the US.
Right now I am hoping these laws are declared unconstitutional, but to be honest, with support by companies like meta and twitter, I expect we will see a national law sometime in 2027.
So in the US, we could be looking at locked down OS, unless you want to break "the law".
Can it be upgraded ? I heard many newer laptops went back to soldered ram because people want thin.
I doubt I will ever get a system with this type of ram, but if it can be easily upgraded then that is an improvement. I usually buy used or in reality I take Laptops from people I know who went and bought the latest and greatest hardware.
I am typing this on a T430 with NetBSD I got from a relative a year ago. I upgraded the ram to 16G back then and today I replaced the keyboard. The keyboard's power button stopped working, seems a small piece broke off over the years and it got to the point it needed replacement.
FWIW, I want a laptop where if you throw it at someone they will know it/s.
> The bizarre thing is that our government still wants to close down the remaining nuclear power plants.
That is very weird, even Germany stated recently that closing down their Nuclear Plants was a big mistake.
For a very long time, I have always said France is smarter than what people give them credit for. Spain should take a peek over the mountains at France to see what a sane energy policy looks like.
Even France shut down the Superphénix. It was just built too! A waste of ten billion dollars because the government gave in to these extremist environmental groups. One of them even fired an RPG at it while it was being built.
Strange how there are so many progressive radical groups and somehow the anti-nuclear activists are the only ones that manage to change the energy agenda in favour of the very powerful lobby of the fossil fuels. The animal activists never changed the subsidies to animal agriculture, the activists for international causes like Palestine haven't managed much either.
... it was shut down in 1998, relevant section from German Wikipedia as the English version is lacking details:
In June 1997, Prime Minister Lionel Jospin announced the closure of the power plant as one of his first official acts. He justified this step by pointing to the enormous costs the plant incurred. In the preceding ten years, it had produced no electricity for most of the time due to malfunctions. It even consumed considerable amounts of electricity to keep the sodium in the cooling system above its melting temperature. Each pipe carrying sodium and every tank was equipped with heaters and thermal insulation for this purpose.
... so it used a lot of energy while being shut down because of malfunctions for most of those 10 years. Seems like shutting it down was the best course of action.
It had problems but it was new technology. That’s always the case. Now only China, Russia and India have Fast Breeder Reactors.
Plus there was the pressure from Les Verts and Sortir du nucléaire, the Molotov cocktail attacks by the Fédération Anarchiste, the RPG attack by the Cellules Communistes Combattantes etc.
A lot of people thought France was just being arrogant for not going all in on becoming dependent on the US and maintaining their own ways of doing things. These past few years, it's been paying off for them. Hopefully other countries will wisen up and not allow their defense and entire economy to be dependent on the US or any other big country. It always comes back to bite them in the ass. The post WW2 decades were unusually stable and assuming it'll be that way forever is not wise.
You can't do everything, and the smaller your country the less you can do. France isn't doing other things because of the opportunity cost.
Of course the EU is bigger than the US and there is value in duplicated/distributed effort. The EU as a whole should be thinking "partner with everyone, but have our fingers in every single pot someplace just in case".
> For a very long time, I have always said France is smarter than what people give them credit for. Spain should take a peek over the mountains at France to see what a sane energy policy looks like.
Incidentally, if I remember correctly, one of the causes (or things that made it worse) of the almost day-long blackout we (Spain) had last year was because France disconnected one of the links to Spain without notifying us properly.
No, we did not. Katharina Reiche and that guy from Bavaria are certainly not "Germany" or the majority of Germans. No atom reactor is going to be built, it's just typical rhetoric from both of them.
Not even the major energy suppliers are interested in building new nuclear reactors.
I was not against prolonging the phase out for a bit, but we don't even have a permanent storage solution after all this time.
Again the US admin proves how dumb they are, even Pres. Bush II knew it would be real stupid to attack Iran.
But one thing, higher oil prices may get the US to really get working to avoid Climate Change. Yes, some progress has been made, but real CO2 emissions is increasing. The only time it decreased a bit was during the Covid Shutdown.
But one plus may occur, higher price of oil.
Yes, higher prices will cause suffering with the poor and middle classes, but that suffering pales in comparison to what +1.5C will cause. We are already on track for more then 2C. Suffering from that will be far worse than $150 USD price per barrel. Better to take a small hit now and hope it can keep us below 1.5C then trying to live with 2C.
Yes, I posted this knowing it will be down-voted, but cheap oil only makes +3C guaranteed to happen. Who cares about the young anyway /s
I think you are failing to understand how (some) people think in the US. Expensive oil for some means that we should drill more oil wells. There is money sitting under the ground and we stick a pipe down and get it - AMAZING.
That is how people think about high oil prices.
If oil was to go to zero people would stop pumping it and burning it (for that to happen the alternatives have to be cheaper/better). That is what will fix climate change in the US.
The demand for oil will likely never truly go to zero; too many products (outside of energy generation) rely on their byproducts.
As for the bigger picture — yes, higher prices for oil might spur extraction in regions outside of the middle east, but that's a local only viewpoint. Globally, higher oil prices reduce consumption and make green alternatives more attractive on net.
I'm not convinced. As those other things become less byproduct and more the product that oil is pumped for the costs change. Oil is cheap today in part because of volume. However as volumes go down a lot of the infrastructure doesn't make sense to run at all. We will need to build new smaller refineries to handle the smaller world demand - when oil companies look to do that they are going to ask for who will sign a long term contract (even a small refinery is expensive) and a lot of users of oil are going to realize that alternatives to oil are perhaps more expensive, but they don't involve the same long term contracts. Poorly managed companies are the ones who won't sign the contract and when they discover they can't get oil anymore they will be forced to look for an alternative, and that will drive investment in the alternative. (we already know how to make plastics from plants - it is just more expensive - but someone forced to use plant based plastics will be sure to market their green features)
1. We stop using oil because we have better, cheaper alternatives, as you already said. Alternatives are cheaper if they become cheaper, but also if oil becomes more expensive. Higher oil prices may stimulate some oil exploration in the short term in the places that have oil. Everywhere else it's going to cause a scramble to renewable alternatives.
2. We stop using oil because we have technologically regressed to the Middle Ages
One thing to be aware of, pasteurization adds costs to dairy products. So it is being done for a real reason, not just "because".
Companies will never pay to do anything unless not doing it will open them up to a law suit. So, raw milk does have some risks just based upon the the fact it costs to pasteurize milk.
> One thing to be aware of, pasteurization adds costs to dairy products. So it is being done for a real reason, not just "because".
I expect this strongly depends on the dairy product in question. For cheese made at the farm, sure. But for plain milk sold in a supermarket, I expect the improvement in logistics far more than makes up for the cost in pasteurization. People don’t UHT-pasteurize their milk for fun — UHT milk is easier to transport and can be shipped and stored in larger lots and rarely spoils on the shelves.
Where I live, you can buy raw milk but only at a substantial premium.
Pasteurization is heating to 70C and cooling it down quickly to kill pathogens. The milk needs to be refrigerated afterwards and used within 2 weeks.
UHT is heating it to 140C for 2s a cooling it to kill pathogens and their spores. It significantly changes flavor, destroys 90% of vitamins and changes some of the proteins structure. Lasts a year afterwards
Gonna make you cough up a reliable citation on that one.
The kombucha folks don't seem to have a problem with vitamins of aseptic purees after processing and generally seem to have converged to aseptic as being superior in terms of nutritional content than any other mechanism including freezing and preservatives. And Vitamin C is notoriously fragile to heat. Generally, Vitamin C is far more fragile than anything in milk (standard pasteurization knocks down Vitamin C by about 50%!).
Overall, though, the nutritional content is "mostly" unaffected by UHT. B1 and B12 drop roughly 10-20% for both types of pasteurization.
The primary issues with UHT are Lysine and folate. Lysine gets clobbered by the Maillard reactions. The folate you cited is definitely a concern given that folate and Vitamin D are factors in preventing birth defects.
And, you are correct that the taste does change since UHT kicks off Maillard reactions in UHT milk. TIL.
However, we come back to the fact that "standard" HTST pasteurization changes are so minimal that the risks of raw milk FAR outweigh any possible gains therefrom.
And if you don't have a reliable cold chain, UHT pasteurization is pretty good with caveats.
European cheese producers have their own costly methods of managing raw milk cheese safety. They have much more surveillance of the entire process, like rapid testing of milk for STEC (the microbe involved in this outbreak) and adding bioprotective cultures during milk production. In France there is an extensive monitoring/alert system. They aren't just YOLO-ing it.
Currently the law requires substantially more testing (and lost product) for raw milk sales. It is hard for be to believe that pasteurization is a significant cost such that the choice is based on cost rather than a product goal.
Well if you harm someone by your contaminated product I believe that coming lawsuit could potentially be more expensive than warming the milk to 70 degrees for a minute. Especially in US.
But my guess is maybe Honda will wait for Tesla or another US based auto company with EVs to fail and buy that company. Seems that is how large companies do "innovation" these days.
>That is until now. AI unlocks that opportunity to upgrade, customize, replace, and frankly better access and use the data captured in these systems of record.
Thanks for making my day, funnest quite about AI I ever read :)
And now there is HANA, good luck with that.
If you ever upgraded SAP, you would know why. It is the custom code, user exits and mods that causes issues in the upgrade, not vanilla SAP.
I would agree if you said many of the Wayland Developers people started with Xfee86. But I think the 'complexity' of X has to do with the fact no one of this generation fully understand why X11 did things the way they did, so Wayland was started. That is OK, but here we are.
I think the main issue is proprietary video companies did not to release their specs. I think if the Wayland people told the GPU Companies (like Nvidia) they will not support your hardware unless you release full specs, they would be further along.
OpenBSD is getting along fine without companies like Nvidia, I wish Linux and Wayland would tell these companies their GPUs will never be supported until full documentation is provided.
reply