It's not really a tax though. Other platforms offer a lower percentage (Epic: 0% up to 1000000 copies sold and 12% above) and yet the prices on Epic aren't cheaper than on steam.
If the final price doesn't change based on the storefront cut, then as a consumer, I don't care.
The X Window System (X11) is a protocol with multiple implementations. Sure, the X.Org Server (Xorg) was the most popular by a huge margin, but there were quite a few others (e.g. XFree86, Xming, XWayland), though over time most were discontinued for one reason or another.
X11 and Wayland do differ in an important way: in X11 window managers (GNOME, KDE, i3, whatever) all sat atop the Xorg server; whereas in Wayland there’s only the compositor, so GNOME, KDE, Sway, whatever, all essentially include their own equivalent of Xorg (which could be fully integrated, or factored into a library, such as Mutter, KWin, wlroots).
There were plenty of those, including commercial ones.
It's pretty hard to find but ~25 years ago I was using Xi Graphics Accelerated-X which had 3D acceleration long before Xfree86.
Update: but yes I imagine it had some code from original MIT release.
For completely independent one you can have a look at WeirdX/WiredX, which was written in Java and even supported antialiasing and transparency for core protocol (something that Xfree86 people claimed to be impossible to implement).
There's no indication that an AGI mind will adopt human-like values. Nor that the smarter something gets, the more benevolent it is. The smartest humans built the atom bomb.
Not that human values are perfectly benevolent. We slaughter billions of animals per day.
If you take a look at the characteristics of LLMs today, I don't think we want to continue further. We're still unable to ensure the goals we want the system to have are there. Hallucinations are a perfect example. We want these systems to relay truthful information, but we've actually trained them to relay information that looks correct at first glance.
Thinking we won't make this mistake with AGI is ignorance.
I had a look at what Stallman said and what Minsky allegedly did.
Apparently, Minsky had sex with one of Epstein's girls, who later said she was forced into it. Now, his wife denies the allegation, as she was apparently with him at all times on Epstein's island.
Now, I can believe that he went once, and maybe had sex with someone he didn't know was not doing so willingly. But, what about his wife? Was he cheating on her? Was she a part of it?
And why did he return a second time? And after Epstein's conviction in 2011???
And here comes Stallman, and he's not even denying that he's slept with someone, potentially cheating on his wife? His issue is with the wording?
He is a weird, socially awkward, maybe autistic guy. And such people tend to be quite pedantic and focused on strange details that "normal" people just jump over.
His issue is that saying "assault" to mean "sex with someone" is dishonest, even if that person is 17. Which is obviously is.
Any sane person hears "assault" and thinks that means "assault" instead it means something else.
What is happening is that the meaning of words are being changed for the purpose of using pre-existing laws. Example, you think that Bla is very bad and isn't punished enough by the law. There's law that severaly punishes Fleem. So, whenever you see Bla you call it Fleem and argue that the anti-Fleem law applies. That way you can effectively re-purpose a law. Specific example: "catcalling" is now "sexual assault" in the UK. It's easier to do it this way, than to argue that people should be punished for catcalling.
Ok, but surely there are more important thing going on there than the wording.
It feels like Stallman wants to defend his friend, but doesn't really have any way to do that. So, instead, he pivots to pedantry.
Like ok, assuming that Marvin really did not know, it's wrong to label him as a sexual assaulter(?). Though legally a sexual assault still occured.
But, it still doesn't explain, justify or deny that he allegedly slept with someone , possibly behind his wife's back. And it also doesn't explain that they went *BACK* to Epstein's island after knowing he was a sex trafficker. And that presumably the girl he slept with might have also been trafficked.
The specific point I'm talking about is the accusation of Minsky. To my point (and Stallman's) doesn't matter if coersion was done by Epstein or Mickey Mouse.
Anyway, I get that you're confused. However, I've lost interest in talking to you.
Because of GNOME's insistence on not implementing Server Side Decorations, you can't not depend on libadwaita. This is what I imagine pull in all of the GTK dependencies.
You can very much draw a border on a windows and a "close" button without any libraries.
Usually, I'd understand if you're lazy and can't be bothered and just pull in some dependency to do it for you, but if you're implementing a toolkit, this is the kind of thing that is SHOULD provide.
I've not explored every program domain, but in general I see two kinds of program memory access patterns.
The first is a fairly generic input -> transform -> output. This is your generic request handler for instance. You receive a payload, run some transform on that (and maybe a DB request) and then produce a response.
In this model, Arc is very fitting for some shared (im)mutable state. Like DB connections, configuration and so on.
The second pattern is something like: state + input -> transform -> new state. Eg. you're mutating your app state based on some input. This fits stuff like games, but also retained UIs, programming language interpreters and so on on.
Using ARCs here muddles the ownership. The gamedev ecosystem has found a way to manage this by employing ECS, and while it can be overkill, the base DOD principles can still be very helpful.
Treat your data as what it is; data. Use indices/keys instead of pointers to represent relations. Keep it simple.
I said "every time I try it" and I said "idiomatic Rust." The fast rust implementations are consistently starred there, indicating use of hand SIMD or unsafe or others. If you read them, they are not very idiomatic.
Also note that 3 of 4 comparisons in favor of Rust are marked "contentious" for using different algorithms with different limitations - they are not equivalents. The last one is k-nucleotide, which is a very algorithmically heavy problem where nobody has given optimized C and Rust has won at producing a decently optimized thing quickly. Note that the fastest C++ implementation handily beats Rust on that one, also.
It just fundamentally does not make sense to compare languages by comparing codegen backends. GCC and LLVM do not produce the same code for equivalent code, especially when optimizations are applied. It's an apples-to-oranges comparison.
Using Clang instead of GCC, the comparison becomes slightly better, at least for microbenchmarks that don't rely too much on libraries.
These benchmarks are still useful from a practical viewpoint - answering the question "what's the expected performance bracket of using language X in real projects today". But it doesn't say anything fundamental about the language design or even the quality of the implementation.
I know what you said. I just don't think it was interesting. If by idiomatic rust, you mean generic "unoptimized" Rust being slower than optimized C, then yeah. No shit.
On a similar note, I don't think it's worth talking about C as if the only C being written is highly optimized hand rolled assembly style of C. That's one in a thousand projects.
Now, as for the benchmarks game, you mean 3 of 6 comparisons in favor of Rust. Rust is winning the benchmarks against C there.
I had a look and the top Rust and C entries are using the same pcre2 library in regex-redux. Same for pidigits where both libraries are using GMP.
The only library difference I can see is that the C entries are using OpenMP and both Rust entries are using Rayon. Now, you could claim that using Rayon gives Rust an unfair advantage. But an entirely userland library beating an industry standard with support from compilers is not a good look for C.
If the final price doesn't change based on the storefront cut, then as a consumer, I don't care.