It is not about security at all. They do not want to test or support old browsers. So, they set a minimum version and tell you that you need to upgrade to that.
If they only support one browser, it is going to be Chrome. Chrome has more zero-day vulnerabilities than any other project I can think of. It is not about security.
I would say that you make a decent argument that the ALU has the strongest claim to the “bitness” of a CPU. In that way, we are already beyond 64 bit.
For me though, what really defines a CPU is the software that runs natively. The Zen4 runs software written for the AMD64 family of processors. That is, it runs 64 bit software. This software will not run on the “32 bit” x86 processors that came before it ( like the K5, K6, and original Athlon ). If AMD released the AMD128 instruction set, it would not run on the Zen4 even though it may technically be enough hardware to do so.
The Motorola 68000 only had a 16 but ALU but was able to run the same 32 bit software that ran in later Motorola processors that were truly 32 bit. Software written for the 68000 was essentially still native on processors sold as late as 2014 ( 35 years after the 68000 was released ). This was not some kid of compatibility mode, these processors were still using the same 32 bit ISA.
The Linux kernel that runs on the Zen4 will also run on 64 bit machines made 20 years ago as they also support the amd64 / x86-64 ISA.
Where the article is correct is that there does not seem to be much push to move on from 64 bit software. The Zen4 supports instructions to perform higher-bit operations but they are optional. Most applications do not rely on them, including the operating system. For the most part, the Zen4 runs the same software as the Opteron ( released in 2003 ). The same pre-compiled Linux distro will run on both.
He is saying that people that get rich selling others people’s stuff without paying for it are not “in it for the money”. What don’t you understand.
Can you not even partially acknowledge that what he is praising is that this guy is successfully realizing that guns are loaded before handling them. This is exactly the behaviour that would have prevented the shooting in the case being discussed.
Ironically, I think there is a link there. I am more likely to relax my disbelief if things look real. Once I have immersed myself into a situation I believe ( because it seems real ), I am less likely to pay attention to things like shot count.
It is the same as having heros that struggle with situations early on and then later are effortlessly capable of so much more. I already believed them so now they can take advantage of that.
To be fair, that is clearly his goal.
You are aware that Trump was indicted for Jan 6 right? The trial is on hold while the Supreme Court decides if he is totally immune to legal consequences.
I do not mind idealist progressives. It is nice to be reminded.
That said, it can be hard to get past all the “death to the investor class” hate for everybody that has saved up to buy a house for their kids to grow up in.
Do you discuss things or attack people? Serious question.
It is hard to tell from this post. It started off well but went a bit off the rails by the end.
I have been using Linux since 1993. Maybe it is time to move on.
I do not know why I al defending that guy, but the comment he is replying to specifically mentioned Android. So, he is not the one that narrowed the conversation from JVM to Android.
Also, I am sure your dingbat humour is quite hilarious. Unfortunately, it went completely over my head.
We have had Ruby for a long time already.
I know you are joking but needing to compile is probably one of the reasons “teams” are more productive in Rust.
You cannot check something into the build system unless you can build. Once Rust is compiling, you have eliminate scores of problems that may still be in equivalent C++ code.
Rust works to limit the damage one dev can do to the codebase.
Great news. Maybe in a year they will pass enough of the rest suite to be taken seriously.
I am not sure what I am excited for, Rust or the MIT license.
I think most programmers would like C# if they spent time with it. It is getting a bit complex because the joke about it over borrowing from other languages is on the money. It is a nice language though and pretty damn fast these days all things considered.
Other than having to know Rust, adding Rust to a C code base is not difficult. They play well together.
There is no need to rewrite old code but, once Rust is there, you are free to.
Linux is a bit of a special case as you cannot just blindly use the Rust standard library.
Having to have a Rust tool chain to build with may or may not be an issue.
For some use cases, like BSD or the Linux kernel, platform support is also a consideration.
PiHole blocks the current ads. Hopefully these new ones too.
I cannot answer your question because it proceeds from an assumption I cannot related to. In my view, Linux is much easier to setup and I have immediate access to a huge software library and am immediately productive.
Installing Windows is much more of a hassle ( the licensing alone ) and, even once installed, you have a system that does nothing useful and needs much more time to install software on before accomplishing anything. Every time you turn around, it is throwing up arbitrary and artificial roadblocks.
Unless it is already installed, I personally cannot fathom why people would want to spend their time installing Windows.
Like the other SVN, the author has been around forever in the Linux space. And yet his articles always come across like somebody that first discovered it a few months ago.
Somehow I find myself rankling at even his smallest editorials as well. Take this one: “Then, there’s GCC Front-End for Rust, which can be loaded by the existing rustc frontend, but benefits from GCC optimizations.” Ok, sure, as long as we do not mind losing all the LLVM optimizations. Why not just say that Rust uses LLVM today and that there is a project to allow the use of the GCC-backend as an option? Leave it to the reader to decide which ecosystem or optimizations they prefer as this article is not even about that. It is like he Googled Rust and added everything he could find to the article. I can think of a reason to use the GCC version of Rust with the kernel. If you are using GCC to compile the C parts of the kernel, you also need LLVM for Rust. A GCC based Rust would eliminate that requirement. Presumably this also allows both the C and Rust code to target the same platforms. GCC and LLVM platform support is not the same. Those would be relevant points but neither of those is about “GCC optimizations”.
That is just one example.
Basically, I find his articles to be as misleading as they are informative and that is not what I want from the technical press.
As everybody else has said, Debian is working as intended. To respond to the actual post though, Debian is working exactly as it always has.
If you think Debian used to be good, you must really love it now. It is better than ever.
Unlike in the past, the primary drawback of Debian Stable ( old package versions ) has multiple viable solutions. Other have rightly pointed out things like the Mozilla APT package and Flatpaks. Great solutions.
My favourite solution is to install Arch via Distrobox. You can then get all the stability of Debian everywhere you need it and, anytime you need additional packages or newer packages, you can install them in the Arch distrobox. Firefox is a prime candidate. You are not going to get newer packages or a greater section than via he Arch repos / AUR ( queue Nix rebuttals ).