softirq

Side note, but I hate that we're moving to a world where coding costs a subscription. I fell in love with coding because I could take my dad's old Thinkpad, install Linux for free - fire up Emacs and start hacking without an internet connection.

We're truly building walls everywhere.

The "owner" could be multiple directory levels depending the hosting service. Gitlab lets you have arbitrary sub levels. The owner of the files also isn't necessarily related to the owner of the repo on Github.

GOPATH actually made me realize that the

~/src/$host/$owner/$repo

organization structure makes a ton of sense for every project and as long as you organize all of your languages into this one tree, everything just works.

Which is terrible UI. Let's force the user to turn a flow they could do at any time by clicking a single button at the bottom of their desktop into a context switch into another window, followed by the same button click. Or know about the Magic Keyboard short cut, then type in multiple characters, then press enter. So in any case we're turning a single input into multiple inputs just to open a commonly used app.

No it's not, for several reasons:

1. Average users primarily use mouse based workflows.

2. Super isn't discoverable.

3. It confused users coming from other DEs.

4. It actually takes more keypresses than clicking a favorited app on a dock that is always available.

Overall it's less discoverable, less efficient, and not baked into the mind of computer users who are coming from almost any other bistro.

Every DE is designed to be used in a distribution. I think what you are trying to say is that GNOME is designed to be "finished" by the distribution, which is a completely made up idea. Show me where GNOME says you need to finish the DE yourself during integration. GNOME is designed as a complete DE, the reason Canonical/System76 change it is because it's poorly designed for new users/casuals, which is their user base.

You just linked to studies that directly support my point:

"On the other hand, new users generally got up to speed more quickly with Endless OS, often due to its similarity to Windows. Many of these testers found the bottom panel to be an easy way to switch applications. They also made use of the minimize button. In comparison, both GNOME 3.38 and the prototype generally took more adjustment for these users.

“I really liked that it’s similar to the Windows display that I have.” —Comment on Endless OS by a non-GNOME user"

GNOME has come a long way, but its stubborn insistence on not having a desktop with a real application launcher remains a huge usability misstep. GNOME's marketshare is the desktop, and so the initial value proposition of a hybrid UI seems very much wishful thinking, while the keyboard based workflows it seems to want to enable are better served by tiling WM such as Sway, and do not make sense for the "default" WM that is picked up by casual converts who are used to a point and click system. Overall it's just a confusing mess for new users, which Canonical/System76 rationally get rid of (which is probably a majority of the GNOME user base).

So why does GNOME continue down this path. Is it a fear of being "just like everyone else" by using a tried and true dock/application bar? Is it a desire to not be the front running WM and be more "niche" to power users? I still don't really understand their decision making process.

Meanwhile the CEO of Nvidia is telling the world that people don't need to learn to code and we'll all be out of jobs soon.

Chess is a bounded, non-moving target. Think about the difference between chess in the 1970s and today, and compare that to the same time period with programming. Chess is a single game whereas programming is a federation of tools, protocols, and standards that are ever evolving. They're not comparable in any sense.

The post is about the demise of coding. I'm only responding to the topic of the discussion.

You can say that about any field. We could invent the elixir of immortality tomorrow, but is that a realistic expectation? The CEO of Nvidia is a smart guy, he's pushing the hype train because his business is riding the wave. But you have to separate hype from an empirical view of what we can actually do today with these tools, versus what hasn't been delivered and is being oversold.

No-code isn't a new concept, and there's a reason why all past attempts have failed, or why people still pay web developers despite the existence of tools like square space. Nothing about the LLMs of today suggests they have solved the no-code problems or will radically displace coding. They generate bad, oftentimes incorrect code for well trodden paths, while struggling to solve novel problems or work in private or unique code bases. They do not easily keep up with new trends or tools. They do not offer the type of semantic understanding that is necessary to work in a logic based field.

LLMs are nothing more than an alternative take on auto-complete, a feature that has been around forever and doesn't radically change programming. It will speed up good programmers to some degree and probably lead to bugs and more bad code from everyone else.

This is yet another hype cycle overselling a modest advancement in technology.

The genius of ebpf is allowing for pluggable policy in a world where the kernel API is very slow to change and can’t meet everyone’s needs. Whether it’s how the kernel handles packets off the wire, how it controls traffic, scheduling entities, or instrumentation, ebpf lets you provide logic rather than turn a bunch of knobs or use a bespoke syscall that only handles one case. It also moves the processing logic to the data in the kernel rather than having the kernel have to do expensive copies to and from userspace.

ebpf isn’t really novel beyond the interfaces it provides. They are just kernel modules that have been vetted and are sandboxed. Inserting executable code has been part of the kernel since forever in module form and kprobes.