Assuming this is true (others have already addressed a few of the many reasons it might not be), wouldn't that imply that practically all existing tests are already flawed? If you want to grade on time, every exam should be graded with a formula taking both the time and the correctness into account. A binary "fast enough" vs "not fast enough" is about as useful as a pass/fail class grade.
The exams that felt like the fairest reflections of my own knowledge were proctored in-person, closed book, and time unlimited. Of course, being time unlimited works better for quantitative/engineering exams. I haven't put much thought into more qualitative/liberal arts type exams.
Not sure how often they update these pages, but Thunderbird is still listed as beta on matrix.org clients page [0], and I remember trying it out some time back and it was indeed very beta (maybe not even beta). It didn't feel like it was getting much maintenance so I stopped using it. I think it's fair to expect bugs in beta releases.
> I’m also tired of this mentality that nobody is allowed to talk about the problems with the product
I think there's a pretty big difference between constructive criticism vs statements like "The development team seems to not care". To me, it seems pretty clear that the team absolutely cares, but they are also a small and very underfunded team, and things take time. Assuming the worst intentions of a team is the problem and is disappointing to see here.
> I’ve given Matrix/Element an honest try many times because some of the OSS projects I’m involved with use it, but month after month it’s the most troublesome of all of the apps in this space that I use, and it’s not even close.
I don't doubt that, but it does not resonate with me. There have been a few hiccups over the years, eg the database corruption earlier this year (unrelated to the protocol or synapse) resulting in stuck invites, but overall I've had quite a good experience. Far less problems than Teams, and even slack has had issues (mainly, notifications not happening) that I have somehow avoided with Element, although I am aware others have had issues in this area. There are even some things I do with matrix that are simply not possible/practical with the others to begin with.
It worked for me on GrapheneOS for quite a while, but a couple months ago things started breaking and I no longer have it enabled. There's an absolute behemoth of a thread discussing the issue, and unfortunately it's still active which I assume means I'm not safe to enable it again yet. If you want some light reading to help put yourself to sleep: https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/1353-using-rcs-with-google-...
I've heard good things about "LLVM Techniques, Tips, and Best Practices" [0] but haven't gotten around to reading it myself yet. Packt does not always have the best reputation but it was recommended to me by someone I know and the reviews are also solid, so mentioning in case it's at all helpful.
> I don't think run0 uses the same configuration syntax as sudo, so it's a no-go from the start.
This is ubuntu, purportedly targeting ease of use, good defaults, and new Linux users. How many Linux newbies are running with custom sudo configurations? By definition, basically none, and of those who do, it's only for passwordless sudo, which I assume can be trivially recreated in run0. For advanced or enterprise users, it is not difficult to install sudo manually or port their configuration over to run0.
> This resistance, IMHO, is moot anyways since the sudo maintainer himself is in support of sudo-rs and actually helped the project in a consultancy capacity (as opposed to directly contributing code).
I'm not categorically against sudo-rs, but use the tool for the job. If all you need is a simple way to get root privilege, sudo is overkill.
> I'm not sure LP is a high-quality source. He has reputation that makes me want to listen to everyone else but him.
Based off his reputation, I would agree, but after reading a lot of his own words via blog posts, comments in github issues, etc, I wonder how he gained that reputation. He has solid reasoning behind many of his ideas even if you disagree with them, and his comments seem pretty respectful and focused on the technical aspects. Maybe things were different in the past, or maybe some segments of the community just never forgave him for the early buggy systemd implementations, or maybe I just happened to only read things he wrote when he wasn't having a bad day, who knows.
Yes, if you ignore all the bugs resulting from features that almost nobody uses.
> along with the rest of the systemd abominations
Not too interested in engaging systemd debates. I have enjoyed using systems with and without systemd, and while I understand the arguments against feature creep, I think you'd be throwing the banana out with the peel to overlook the idea behind run0.
For such a security sensitive piece of software like sudo, reducing complexity is one of the best ways to prevent logic bugs (which, as you mentioned in the sibling, is what the above bug was). If run0 can remove a bunch of unused features that are increasing complexity without any benefit, that's a win to me. Or if you don't like systemd, doas on OpenBSD is probably right up your alley with a similar(ish) philosophy.
> People start making sudo more secure by replacing it with sudo-rs
I would have much preferred if ubuntu went with run0 as the default instead of trying to rewrite sudo in rust. I like rust but the approach seems wrong from the beginning to me. The vast majority of sudo usecases are covered in run0 in a much simpler way, and many of the sudo bugs come from the complex configurations it supports (not to mention a poorly configured sudo, which is also a security hazard and quite easy to do). Let people who need sudo install and configure it for themselves, but make something simple the default, especially for a beginner distro like ubuntu.
Agree, Naver maps for navigating public transit in Seoul is excellent. Easier to figure out than public transit in any American city I've been to and I don't read or speak Korean. iirc it even tells the fastest routes/best carriage to be on to optimize transferring between lines.
That's depressing and yet unfortunately not very surprising to read.
> but in practice, we just saw a fleet of major Matrix tenders go to system integrators who then apologetically cut Element out, despite AGPL - putting Element's funding for 2025 directly at risk.
I appreciate the transparency and you totally don't have to but not sure I fully understand this sentence, do you mind explaining that further?
> Linux distributions are obviously massive sprawling complex things
Just my perspective but I think this was also perhaps a product of the time when Red Hat really started growing, back when linux was a little more rough around the edges. These days it seems linux has enough polish that some (many?) corporations are happy to just use off the shelf ubuntu and call it a day and hope nothing breaks too badly.
[0] has many more details but CentOS was never a drop in replacement and the new CentOS model is a big improvement for anyone wanting drop in replacements. I agree with everything else you said though, they were independent of IBM for nearly 3 decades and always were and still remain among the most active linux contributors (just see any of LWN's development statistics articles).
> Beeper is charging people who haven't purchased devices
Do you have numbers for that? Sure, some of the users haven't purchased devices, but many of them have an apple device or two and just want access to the network across all the devices they use.
How long have you used Here WeGo? It used to be my primary maps application but a couple years back they updated it and broke everything (offline address search stopped working, no route choices anymore, I think they removed the TTS options which made the voice directions much harder to follow, etc).
The reviews for the app tanked after that disaster and practically all of them mentioned the update as the pain point, do you know if they ever recovered a semblance of what it used to be? Maybe I'll have to check it out again, I've been using Magic Earth ever since then and it's pretty solid but there are a few minor things I still miss.
Assuming this is true (others have already addressed a few of the many reasons it might not be), wouldn't that imply that practically all existing tests are already flawed? If you want to grade on time, every exam should be graded with a formula taking both the time and the correctness into account. A binary "fast enough" vs "not fast enough" is about as useful as a pass/fail class grade.
The exams that felt like the fairest reflections of my own knowledge were proctored in-person, closed book, and time unlimited. Of course, being time unlimited works better for quantitative/engineering exams. I haven't put much thought into more qualitative/liberal arts type exams.