knighthack

How you started completely disqualified whatever the author of the article argues next:

"...The recent fiasco involving Linus Torvalds running Linux like the privileged man that he is and entirely missing the central points of the arguments made by people who don't enjoy his kind of privilege..."

It was his 'privilege' that led to the technical competency of the project that is now enjoyed by many.

Attacking someone's 'privilege' is the lowest form of argument.

I leaped to Linux a few years back. One of the best moves in my life. The speed, the reaction time, the lack of bloat.

I side-car'ed a Mac for some apps that could not go through (e.g. for audio work, which Linux has some difficulties with, and lacks a lot of good apps for), but even that went smoothly because it had far less bloat and was already very UNIX-y.

The post is aggressive.

I was about to dislike it, then I realized: the author's aggression comes off as... human.

I don't know if the aggression itself is an intentional mockery of the cool, dispassionate, pseudo-poetic tone that AI mostly writes in.

But the passionate visceral disgust is definitely human.

I really don't get having a ton of MD files lying around. And the possibility of having to edit a thousand MD files when the metadata frontmatter changes.

A single SQLite database implements columns/metadata handling, and comes baked-in with FTS and BM25 ranking too.

> AI music appears to be reasonable music, but it carries no human emotion, it has no intent to exist and stand up on its own.

The 'lack' of human emotion does not make anything less musical, at least on the composition side.

But even on the playing side: well-crafted AI music these days have started sounding just as expressive as human-made music. It is not bland at all.

> LLMs are terrible at accurately summarizing anything. They very randomly latch on to certain keywords and construct a narrative from them, with the result being something that is plausibly correct but in which the details are incorrect, usually subtly so, or important information is omitted because it wasn't part of the random selection of attention.

I don't know what you've been doing, but the summaries I get from my LLMs have been rather accurate.

And in any event, summaries are just that - summaries.

They don't need to be 100% accurate. Demanding that is unreasonable.

One other thing - latency.

The newest Macbooks have insanely powerful hardware (I have an M4 Macbook Max). Yet they do not feel as speedy or instant on my machines with i3. There's always a perceivable milliseconds of latency, with response time from the keyboard to the screen. As someone who has tons of key bindings, I find this tolerable, but it can get a bit grating compared to just how instantaneous everything is on my Linux.

The one interesting thing (as a heavy user of both OSes) is that since the past decade there now are plenty of high-quality games (if those count for apps) on the Linux, that still don't work as well or as plentifully on Mac.

Linux is bound to be the number one gaming machine in time; general apps aside.

I use CopyQ. Love it because it's so cross-platform, and consistently works across my Mac and Linux machines with minimal fuss; it handles images really well too.

I have some doubts about your statements. If you can't get a job at FAANG or the major startups, sure - that makes absolute sense. Competition is crazy.

If you can't get a job at all, that makes no sense, and probably speaks more to the fact that you might be an academic parrot who can talk code, but not write code, as an actual software developer with practical abilities. And that goes more to your lack of practice, rather than lack of knowledge. The world is not to blame in that regard but you.

Alternatively, try different domains - your skills might work little wonder in the software world, but might move mountains in other (especially labour-intensive) domains.

While I love this insightful analogue, your statement seems exactly like the kind of text you copy-pasted from some LLM, which you then regurgitated to Hacker news with some modifications.

It even ends with that trademark conclusion-style statement... which is a hallmark of ChatGPT output.

I'm not sure why allowances are made for Zig's verbosity, but not Go's.

What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.

What "ugly things" exactly did he say?

I find it ridiculous how "writing scripts to keep things working the way I want" can be a source of frustration.

To me, that's a source of pleasure.

I've never expected Windows or Mac to work exactly how I want them to. In fac, they can't. So given that, how can Linux be a poorer experience/

The truth is that for virtually everyone, Linux will be the absolute closest experience to having everything work exactly the way you want things to, because it is that open to being modified.