You just need to use it more often and your brain will start to get better at parsing the output of `ip a` automatically.

Also there is the `-c` flag (on most implementations) to highlight relevant parts of the output with colors.

@lastNick well, you wouldn't design your new product thought a cheap Chinese PCB service. I assume it's just to get new customers/makers to try PCB assembly.

@gathurian If you commit, than a hard reset is no problem since you can use git reflog.

My workflow is commit often and clean up before pushing/merging (rebase -i).

Generally I try to follow the "commit often" mantra, even if I have tons of 'WIP' commits, that way I won't lose any progress when I do some "risky" git operations. In the end before merging you can clean up the commits.

My favourites:

http://craftinginterpreters.com (free, although the second part which implements the language in C is currently work in progress)

https://interpreterbook.com (not free)
https://compilerbook.com (successor to the interpreter book, not free)

@Niss Not sure what you exactly mean with "fucking up software integration". But generally I think automotive safety critcial software has show an good track record in the past. (With exemptions like Toyota, Tesla, etc.)

My main point was, that there are procedures and standards to make software reliable and safe where it matters. It's not like some intern is gonna write some ECU code tomorrow in a new programming language he discovered. But yes, in less critical software the quality is often shit. (And I'm aware that some software is actually more critical than it appears at first glance).

I mean as others already have kinda pointed it out. Most software today is not safety critical in a sense where it would endanger lives.

But software which is in the same category as a bridge like aerospace, automotive, etc. has to undergo tons of paperwork, specifications, code reviews, etc.

There are quite a few standards for different industries, and if you are really designing/writing safety critical software, "move fast and break things" will definitely not fly.

@CatMDV If you do the password search, it only sends the first few bytes of the SHA hash to the site. https://troyhunt.com/ive-just-launc...

If you don't trust the JS, you can directly use the API.

@Condor Try/check the version of the wpa_supplicant, maybe there something broke.

Edit: Also I had some issues with not being able to connect to WPA when some in-kernel crypto stuff was disabled.

Are you debugging the driver in the Linux tree, or some other out of tree thingy.

@AnonymousDev hopefully for something nice/important.

Is the installation in Vienna? Judging by the streetsigns it looks to be at least in Austria.

Using goto for ressource cleanup is a common pattern in the Linux kernel, see also: https://eli.thegreenplace.net/2009/...

Readable and easy to follow code is more important than some dogma.

@gamingfail123 But it's freee. Fucking Stasi was stupid :D Just give away free phones.

As an alternative to SSH and WiFi preconfiguration, you can enable the serial port and solder 3 female dupont cable connectors to the header holes, so you can hook up an off the shelf USB to UART converter when you need direct access.

@RememberMe Well yes and no, embedded is a far field. The embedded systems I work with run a full Linux kernel on a dual core (or better) Cortex-A7 with 1.2 GHz and 512 MiB of RAM. And efficiency is not as high of an priority as you might think when it comes to developing and running software on this thing.

So it really depends in what sub-field of embedded you want to go.

Probably the most efficiency you'll see when developing stuff for 8-bit microcontrollers. Because even on things like a Cortex-M0 you usually have some abstraction layers with some runtime cost.

@JKyll Ok, from the initial rant this was my impression. But if this not the case than I'm sorry.

@Wack So even if it would be possible to remove the CoC from the kernel using this mechanism, the means would not justify the ends, since the precedence would be huge and allow for any butthurt GPLv2 contributor to pull back his code.

@Wack Which decision?

The decision to not be outraged? What does it really give you to be outraged? Unless you are a core contributor to the Linux kernel your outrage will very likely not change any decisions, or even worse it might harden the fronts (leading to more "us vs. them" thinking on both sides). The only think you achieve by creating outrage is that your blood pressure rises and you create an echo-chamber with people around yourself agreeing with you.

And then those stupid ideas come up like rescinding your code which you contributed to a GPLv2 project. Already the assumption that this would be possible is stupid. But then also welcoming and being in favor of this (possible) GPLv2 mechanism, just to show to the SJW's, that developers will not "take it up the ass". This is even more stupid, because this mechanism would have far more reaching implications then just owning the SJW's.

@JKyll The comparison between contributing code and lending a car is pretty flawed on many levels. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure GPLv2 code contributions to a project doe not fall under the same category as lending a car.

Also if this would be possible under the GPLv2 we should have at least a precedence by now, it's not like the GPLv2 is new and there are thousands (if not more) projects using it.

Also just imagine the implications if this would really be possible, there would be tons of issues in all of the bigger GPLv2 projects. Another implication would be that GPLv2 projects would be even more careful to accept contributions, because an individual contributor can decide to be a shitbag (for whatever reasons) and harm/blackmail the project. So no, this is not and never will be possible (I will change my mind when it happens).

So think about it (and the implication) for a second and see if you really in favor of this mechanism, just to own some SJW's ...

@Wack No, I don't have any articles on the "other side". I don't need articles to come to the conclusion that this outrage is overblown.

@JKyll I never said it is true, that why I explicitly wrote "from Stallman presumably" and don't worry I take stuff with enough grain of salt.

But you use it as an argument for the legal feasibility of this: "Regarding legality, R. Stallman pointed out there is precedence and it's a "threat with teeth"."

And since lulz.com changed their narrative here, I would say you argument is voided.

And maybe it's not blackmail in some dictionary definition (too lazy to look it up now), but it still boils down to: "remove the CoC or I remove my code", which is essentially threatening harm to a project if they do not fulfill the request. Which also boils down to "I prefer to harm this projects if they do not what I say".

"As always, the free market will dictate what sticks ..."

Yes, I agree, and that's why I think this outrage is way out of proportion, because Linux is used in so many commercial settings, there is no way the Linux project will go down the shitter anytime soon.

@DLMousey Yes, this is the slippery slope argument and I agree it's not impossible that this might happen.

However chances for this happening are very slim, especially in the Linux kernel, time will prove if I was right.

But I think that the outrage is out of proportion in any case, I did not check it, but I would bet a good beer that there were at least 2 rants every day related to this topic. And then are rants like this where there is some garbage ideas to try to force projects into a certain direction by essentially trying to blackmail/sabotage them.

@JKyll You sure about that Stallman thing? Or how about lulz.com is a garbage source. Look at that: https://web.archive.org/web/...

I quote (from Stallman presumably): "The developers of Linux, or any free program, can remove any and all code, at any time, without giving a reason. However, this doesn't force others to delete that code from their own versins of the program."

So now another question pops up, why did lulz.com change the narrative?

So no, unless there is a real precedence this rescinding of copyright thing is pure armchair lawyer bullshit probably to give someone the feeling that devs (obviously only if their views align with yours) are not "taking it up the ass".

Also what different is this "rescinding of copyright thing" from trying to blackmail projects (by threatening to remove code) because they do not align with your views anymore?

Also nice mentality: "if it is not how I like it, I will try to destroy it", almost like a child.

Lul, yes, this is gonna be a fight of epic proportions, the (real) developers vs. the SJW cucks.

Let me get this out of the way, I'm also against the CoC.

But holy shit what you write is a load of garbage, I'll tell you exactly what will happen to Linux: nothing. Greg will do the next release, most developers and companies will still contribute code and nothing in the daily workflow will change. (We can come back to this in a year and see how things changed).

Yes, some developers might leave out of ideological reasons, and as always you guys come with the LLVM example. And as big of a loss the leaving Avila was, LLVM did not went down the shitter. (Btw. which Linux core developers left the project since this started?)

Also regarding the rescinding of copyright, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure this is not how it works since it would be a major oversight and create tons of issues in tons of other GPLv2 projects. But I'll change my mind if there will be a precedence.

@j4cobgarby That was not even my point, but you said that the *only* difference is the power consumption, which is definitely not the case.

@j4cobgarby No, class D amplifiers have a completly different working principle.

@Condor Also I was actually only referencing the pull request for reverting #9100, the only reasons I see for it is just to create more drama, and as mentioned, you for sure did not expect to anything serious to come out of it.

So if you want it summarized I probably "fight" against knee-jerk reactions, bullshit hysteria, (slippery slope) fear-mongering, misinformation and the common circle-jerk.

@Condor I only skimmed through the reply, because I really don't care about your opinion on those things.

But what really riles me up is when people are spreading hysteria (this includes all the recent rants and recent actions). And no, Linux will not go down the shitter, Python will not go down the shitter, the same way that Django (and other projects who let "SJW" and CoCs into their communities) did not go down the shitter. I get it, you are probably afraid (and correct me if I'm wrong) that all those nice open source projects will become infested SJW heavens and you will not longer be able to use it for whatever reasons (code quality, etc.). Hint: they will not. If you want we can check back in a year or two and see how Python and Linux are doing.

And obviously then there is the thing with the misinformation. Like the Avila stuff, I can't prove if it is malicious intent or just pure ignorance what OP said here and the one point about Avila which you had in your other rant.

@Condor Well I never said you are a bigot, and if you think I implied that, than you might have the wrong idea. Also I do not care about your political views or your views on littering for that matter. I told you what I care about and I told you what riles me up, and if you try argue that this was not the case in the recent days here, than so be it.

I'm pretty sure the pull request was to stir up more drama (and maybe make a statement). Or are you so out of touch that you really thought that the pull request would start a productive discussion or even get considered for a merged?

Also don't start stating how this is censorship because they closed the pull request ... (because if you don't realize it, I'm not trying to defend the Python developers here).