The take on flatpaks is such an uninformed one. DMGs on MacOS come with all the dependencies bundled in, which make them essentially just as big as the comparable flatpak (minus the shared runtime that gets installed once)
Seriously, the amount flatpak misinformation that people hold onto is absolutely wild. Ex: I have had to show people it does differential updates because they don't bother to read the output.
Flatpaks are easily the best gui desktop app experience for users we have today.
currently my job as a junior is to review vibe code that was "written" by seniors. it's just such bullshit and they make mistakes I wouldn't even dare to make in my first year of school
Apple allow this kind of thing only on Mac and while also ensuring it does not happen by providing 0 documentation and by not contributing to any outside project. FEX was not made as part of the Asahi Linux project btw. Please inform yourself before making statements
I really like this, the fact that vibe coded PRs are often bad is that people don't review it themselves first, they just look at the form, and if it looks vaguely similar to what they had in their mind, they'll just hit save and not ask the LLM for corrections
I'm being dense? dense is something I never am, though pithy I will take. here, read this, and then you try to write something equally persuasive about long variable names. I'll wait
Linux support is still basically non-existent for the first gen, and they made all this deal about supporting Linux and the open source community. This is to say, don't trust them
That'd definitely fit the Qualcom pattern of trying to force you to update by not upstreaming their linux drivers.
This is one place where windows has an advantage over linux. Window's longterm support for device drivers is generally really good. A driver written for Vista is likely to run on 11.
Old situation: "Android drivers" are technically Linux drivers in that they are drivers which are built for a specific, usually ancient, version of Linux with no effort to upstream, minimal effort to rebase against newer kernels, and such poor quality that there's a reason they're not upstreamed.
New situation: "Android drivers" are largely moved to userspace, which does have the benefit of allowing Google to give them a stable ABI so they might work against newer kernels with little to no porting effort. But now they're not really Linux drivers.
In neither case does it really help as much as you'd hope.
Not surprising considering I haven't seen a programming manual or actual datasheet for these things in the first place. Usually helps if you tell the community how to interact with your hardware ..
Not even true: Arm, Intel, AMD, and most other hardware vendors (who are actively making an effort to support Linux on their parts) actually publish useful[^1] documentation.
edit: Also, not knocking the Qualcomm folks working on Linux here, just observing that the lack of hardware documentation doesn't exactly help reeling in contributors.
[^1]: Maybe in some cases not as useful as it could be when bringing up some OS on hardware, but certainly better than nothing
reply