4K doesn't really say anything about image quality, just the resolution of the picture, which tells you the theoretical maximum level of visual detail.
Focusing on resolution is like asking "how strong is one meter of rope" without talking about the composition of the rope.
With streaming video, image quality ultimately comes down to the codec and the bitrate. They probably use a relatively low bitrate regardless of codec.
Bitrate, resolution, and codec are all of course critical, and not knowing all three makes it impossible to judge how good or bad it will look. Sadly the resolution is the only one of the three that's easy to describe to consumers, so here we are.
This is a bad association even for people that recognize it. Presumably there were good years but most will probably remember the ugly endgame with awkward UX and weird ads masquerading as fake download links.
Yup! That clears it up. It’s the site that serves lots of ads and binary packages of some old software. At least as of the last time I looked some years ago.
Ok then, not sure I would want more things like that today to self host, but to each their own.
Hey, we're glad to hear you're interested in Guix :)
I just wanted to say that Guix doesn't hate systemd, or think of itself as an anti-systemd project or anything like that.
Systemd was not chosen because GNU already had a (quite simplistic) init system written in Guile Scheme, and we want to use Guile for the entire system.
Eventually, our goal is to offer a fully integrated interface for managing the system, just like systemd. We are not there yet :)
Is it really wise to go against such important/widely-used part of the linux userspace? I do find Guix as cool as NixOS, but this decision seems like a self-inflicted wound.
Nonetheless, I should definitely get to know the project more, because it was some time ago I tried it last.
So, Good luck with the project! :)
Even within active GNU projects, this egregious incidence of mismanagement is still not widely known, although many maintainers of active GNU projects have their own stories of when Stallman's ignorance of a subject led him to make poor decisions.
For at least a decade, his near-total ignorance of how people (billions of them!) use computers has been encouraged and deepened by the sycophantic acolytes who encourage him to ignore developments in computing, like the ostrich with its head in the sand.
All the while, the FSF and GNU can do less and less for the users who are stuck living in the dystopia that he predicted in the 80s and 90s.
It's as if, after the first time they booted a computer with a fully-free operating system, they declared the work to be complete, abandoning the future.
> For at least a decade, his near-total ignorance of how people (billions of them!) use computers has been encouraged and deepened by the sycophantic acolytes who encourage him to ignore developments in computing, like the ostrich with its head in the sand.
Can you expand on this point? I don't doubt you, but I'd like to know more.
It's possible to maintain software quality (or quality of any endeavour) without being rude or making people feel bad.
On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be any correlation between rude behaviour and high levels of technical quality, nor is there any plausible explanation for such a correlation.
My hunch is that any successful project with a rude atmosphere succeeds in spite of the rudeness.
See the Rust project (the programming language, not the game) for one example of a community which manages to retain a huge focus on software quality while staying professional and inclusive, and not being rude to outsiders. We might even see a development where people will choose to "rewrite their software in Rust" purely as a ploy to attract nice and professional contributors!
Rust is extremely exclusionary (to non-progressives). The "niceness" is mostly a facade - a lot of the people in the Rust community are extremely passive-aggressive and back-stabby. OTOH, I've contributed to a lot of "rude" projects where they'll treat you with respect and won't try to pull weird bullshit if you actually come in to make a contribution rather than to do political activism or something.
Even if you've never had to interact with them, it's easy to see that social signaling is more important to the rust community than doing good work. Last time I was in the Rust discord, their channel logo was literally the rust logo over a the gay flag with lines for black and brown people added. Wtf?
I've submitted probably >100kloc to various open source projects over my career, and the weird politicking and immature behavior of the Rust community soured me on contributing to the Rust ecosystem almost immediately.
> Last time I was in the Rust discord, their channel logo was literally the rust logo over a the gay flag with lines for black and brown people added. Wtf?
This sort of hateful comment is why the tech industry is a horrible place. Even in the best pockets of the tech industry, like HN, intolerance is treated as a legitimate enough perspective to be worthy of endless debate.
And then people furrow their brows over why tech's demographics are so warped. eye roll
There's no fix, no hope. The tech tradition of "open debate" guarantees an endless supply of comments like this.
Software is a second career for me, and the pervasive hostility of the tech industry has never stopped shocking me. I dream of communities where differences are celebrated, enhancing creative ferment; the tech industry as a whole won't be that way within the foreseeable future, but there can be pockets where tolerance and constructive interaction are norms.
The Rust community is one of them. Regardless of whether it is successful as a recruitment tool, regardless of the effect on productivity, building a kind community is worthwhile just for the sake of its members.
Because life is short, and every hour that we spend enjoying ourselves rather than enveloped by hostility is a treasure.
> I dream of communities where differences are celebrated, enhancing creative ferment
"Difference" is a semantically overloaded word. The kind of differences that are needed to move software forward aren't the kind of superficial differences that might signal creative diversity in other industries, like music, where cultural background is a significant influence on creative output.
Well, not to worry — that dream will not be realized any time soon. There are too many people in today's tech industry who are utterly, adamantly opposed to it and who will strive tirelessly to defeat it.
My heart remains in the independent music industry, not here. The tech industry is a horrible place.
And believe it or not, things are better now than they were in the past. Reading mailing lists and forums from the early 00s is a very uncomfortable experience.
I suspect that being derisive and dismissive is often a coping mechanism for when a person realizes they don't know how to answer a question but doesn't want to admit it.
I worked in a recording studio for 6 years. It had started as a punk rock shop, but by the time I worked there had grown into a mid-level facility with a diverse clientele; I recorded two koto albums, remastered a Marcel Marceau interview record, did transfers of lost tapes from Cambodian surf rock bands wiped out by the Khmer Rouge... it was day after day of solving hard technical problems with very limited budgets to help individuals achieve their personal artistic visions, and an ongoing celebration of freaks letting their freak flags fly.
I dream of open source software communities with a similar ethos, but they must exist within a vast sea of tech industry assholery and misogyny, and are so easily swamped.
Reminds me of the "steve jobs effect" at certain points. CEOs and execs purposely being arseholes because greatness. Newton was a bastard. Steve was an ass. Prince was unbearable. If I act like a bastard...
What you describe is very possible with a group of like minded developers; I think everyone, including those who are perceived as rude on the Internet, prefers that atmosphere.
In practice, however, many open source projects have socially dominant developers who incessantly rewrite everything and introduce bugs until some introvert correctness advocate explodes.
There is no way of dealing nicely with passive aggressive socially dominant people. They just continue their game until someone calls them out directly.
These days, of course, the introvert is canceled and they can carry on.
Right, Debian Testing is not supported as an "operating system" in any way. It's just a place for Debian developers to test their changes.
I see this misunderstanding all over the net — people think that Debian Testing is more supported than Debian Unstable, when the reverse is true. The Debian project has serious problems with public communications and expectation management.
It's true that RMS founded GNU and was the key leader for decades, and is basically its mascot. To many, RMS and GNU are the same. One cannot overstate his impact on the ideals and values of GNU.
I disagree with the suggestion that the group of people under discussion — who aim to distance themselves from RMS — want to "reduce the GNU project to a mere formality".
I think it's the opposite: that those people want to embolden GNU and strengthen the bonds between the various GNU softwares to create a first-class operating system made of free software, the GNU way. They ended their association with Stallman but continued with GNU because they believe in its goals. One could even say they did it because they believe that GNU is important.
It's been a very long time since RMS was able to marshall a group of people to work toward that goal. The maintainers of Guix and the other signatories of the statement against Stallman's leadership are doing that very thing.
The proof is in the pudding: the latest Guix release had 201 contributors. I think that's a lot.
GNU is internally managed on a private mailing list. Guix and other GNU maintainers coming out against Stallman may have been surprising to those who aren't privy to that list, but for the rest of us, it has been a long time coming.
For a long time, key GNU projects have either effectively quit GNU or, with great effort, wrested authority away from RMS because what goes on "behind the scenes" in GNU is not good. The only change is that now they are doing it in public.
> The only change is that now they are doing it in public.
They very conveniently started to do it in public when Stallman's reputation was severely damaged by the media spreading lies about him, when he lost his home, when he most needed support. And they started by publishing a vague defamatory statement against him, and they used the GNU projects website for that. And they continued to defame him on the mailing lists.
Could there really be any excuse for their actions? Was it acceptable even if they believe that they were doing it for the good of the GNU project?
> was the key leader for decades, and is basically its mascot.
RMS was and still is the GNU project leader.
> It's been a very long time since RMS was able to marshall a group of people to work toward that goal.
He gives talks all around the world, trying to warn people about proprietary software and getting them involved in Free Software.
> GNU is internally managed on a private mailing list.
But this little kerfluffle was on a public mailing list, as was requested by the various maintainers who wanted to oust RMS. It was open for anyone to follow along on the gnu-misc-discuss list from 2019-10 and forward. The discussion doesn't really support your "it has been a long time coming" assertion.
> For a long time, key GNU projects have either effectively quit GNU
If you mean Gnome, it still has a lot of those who support GNU, or aren't even aware Gnome is not GNU. There are enough of them the Gnome leadership only raises issues when it allows them to raise their own profile and public visibility, like what happened during the MIT debacle.
> The only change is that now they are doing it in public.
Thankfully, so everyone can read for themselves how claims that what is going on in GNU is "not good" is very subjective and more of a "not how I personally would like it to be".
It's not weird that this article, which translates the technical firefighting and structural aspects of the fire for laypeople, does not mention a xenophobic conspiracy theory that has been rejected by the French authorities.
That rejection would be more credible if it came with an alternate explanation (none as of right now), or if it hadn't come while the building was literally still on fire.
Which part of the article I linked is xenophobic? Which part is a conspiracy theory? And finally, which part has been rejected by the French authorities?
It's in French and I don't have the energy to make a summary of it, but basically your original article is a mix of misreading and bad faith interpretations of an already biased original source.
Focusing on resolution is like asking "how strong is one meter of rope" without talking about the composition of the rope.
With streaming video, image quality ultimately comes down to the codec and the bitrate. They probably use a relatively low bitrate regardless of codec.