Comon attitude among older techs. I imagine its a bit like gen z on phones.

Messaging seems immediate and demanding where as email seems to give the recipient a answer when you have time feel.

Its about not growing up with IM while email was treated like an extention to paper memo systems many work environments already used. More so as the system is older then the Internet. So many office networks had inter office email In the early 80s. And inter offfice memo systems like a little postal system were common in big companies for decades before that.

yeah, auto correct.

Only if those device makers are willing to use it. And that has always been the tightrope linux has walked.

Its very history as a x86 platform means it has needed to develop drivers where hardware providers did not care. So that code needed to run on closed hardware.

It was bloody rare in the early days that any manufacturer cared to help. And still today its a case of rare hardware that needs no non free firmware.

Free hardware is something I’ll support. But it is stallman et als fight not the linux kernel developers. They started out having to deal with patented hardware before any one cared.

proprietary

Well related to the owner is the very definition of proprietary. So as far as upstream vs not available for upstream is concerned. That is what the term is used for in linux.

So yep by its very definition while a manufacture is using a licence that other distributions cannot embed with their code. Marking it proprietary is how the linux kernal tree was designed to handle it.

EDIT: The confusion sorta comes from the whole history of IBM and the PC.

Huge amounts of PC hardware (and honestly all modern electronics) are protected by hardware patients. Its inbuilt into the very history of IBMs bios being reverse engineered in the 1980s.

So as Linux for all its huge hardware support base today. It was originally designed as a x86(IBM PC) compatible version of Unix.

As such when Stallman created GPL 3 in part as a way of trying to end hardware patients. Linux was forced to remain on GPL 2 simply because it is unable to exist under GPL 3 freedom orientated restrictions.

The proprietary title is not seen as an insult. But simply an indication that it is not in the control of the developers labelling it.

GPL3 has extra restrictions banning patients etc. So yeah a lot of GPL 2 code written by companies that open software but not hardware. Would have legal questions about running with GPL 3

GPL 3 was created to be more restrictive to non-open hardware.

I think I even used Windows XP wallpapers on Linux for some time.

Well now I suddenly care.

Why the hell do you want to watch the world burn?

;)

No bodies business but the user what wallpaper they like.

I use images from the UK canal inferstructure where I spend much of my time.

If you’re willing to tell me to do otherwise. My response is going to be short and rude.

Guessing. But if you did it at the hospital or with their equipment, yes.

In a home lab with your own equipment. Not so sure,

Darktable

Yeah im not an apple fan. (My brother would have a heart attack if I didnt say that. He loves them).

But the fact they controll both hardware and software means they can run on lower specs. They dont use it as well as they could. But android having to allow others to develop hardware. Provides a bit more ability for manufactures to implement less efficient drivers. This is why some higher spec low value stuff seems so slow compared to equal speced cheaper Samsung stuff etc.

Well nowadays yes. But when the term smartphone was invented. Really not.

The 1st iPhone was way lower spec then many high end phones of the time. Mainly Nokia but others as well.

Early androids and others def had no specific specs that differed them from other high-end phones such as Symbian Win CE (as crap as the OS was but then so was the smartphone mareted version recreated later on)

Seriously, marketing was the only thing that differed them from phones like the N95 and communicator etc etc.

And as I mentioned, the locked store front. That really seem to be the main difference but really I still find non-advantageous myself.

been a long while so my memory is likely flawed.

But I’m sure I remember someone getting doom running on a 95 in the 2000s some time.

Had one for a good few years. Moved from US back home to UK with it so lasted a good while.

Loved the thing. Hated when I had to give it up due to lack of support for newer software.

I still find it bloody hard to see how modern smartphone are technically different. When you consider early some android etc had keyboards etc. Basically, it’s just marketing and a more locked in app/program store.

Thats easy.

Some folks are insane.

And thank fuck for them. Doing dumb stuff like this has led to so much of the useful stuff we see and use now.

“Can I make this dumb idea work” is the very source of inspiration behind science. Never underestimate its value.

–

My relative sanity can be so disapointing to me ;)

High use Blender users tend to avoid AMD for the reasons you point out.

This leads to less updates due to amd users not being to interested in the community.

It is an issuw without any practicle solution. Because as I need a long overdue update. Again nvidia seems the only real choice.

Everyone is sorta forced to do that unless we can convince amd users to just try out blender and submit results.

So hi any AMD users who dont care about blender.

Give it a try and submit performance data please.

Yeah looks very much like nvidia is exclusive at the top even at the price I’m looking at.

The RTX4060 looks about right price vs performance. I’ll spend some time looking up how well they play with linux atm. And keep an eye out for a used RTX4070 as well.

If no one minds my hyjacking part of this thread.

Id also like some similar advice.

I use blender. Not heavily but have been playing on it for 20plus years.

My GPU is pretty old. 1050ti at the time nvidia was pretty much it for blender.

Im looking for a sub £300 card in the next 3 to 6 months.

Is AMD well supported by blender now. And what cards would folks recomend these days.

PS not a gamer. 0ad is about as close as i get.

Agreed. And when data like this is shared by honest consideration. It can help with moral.

But the tittle here is extremely false. And the lack of science in headlines can be dangerous.

I have been T1d for over 40 years. I was promised by doctors in the 1980s that e were close to a cure. I have seen friends die because of that hope. IE, thinking the cure is so close they don’t need to worry.

I had been a T1d for nearly 20 years when science discovered the autoimmune issue. And I realised. Not only are we not close to a cure. But we have absolutely no idea how to address the immune system attacking our own pancreas.

At the time. Sure, doctors honestly believed transplants might work. So those kids that failed to treat it like a lifetime condition. Sorry for the error. But the advice was at least based on the best knowledge of the time.

Issue is I still see doctors claiming we are a few years from a cure, more than 40 years later. When absolutely no positive research exists covering a cure for the immune issue. This has lead to a whole generation of T1ds like me and my brother who find articles like this insulting and dangerous. As we have seen, the harm false hope can cause.

Honestly, promise of better treatment is way more viable than promise of an unknown cure. When I was diagnosed, portable blood testing was impossible. Urine tests once a day was the best w could get. We had no fast insulin. So I had to inject to cover the whole da. And eat a little every 2 hours to prevent dying of hypoglycaemia. Honestly, not only were we unable to keep track and manage our level well. We had no idea what a non T1ds levels looked like over time.

Modern medicine has changed T1d treatment hugely in my lifetime. To the point where my life expectancy on diagnosis was about 45 years. And my health now. Means that really is not absurdly far off. The harm done in those first years of poor insulin and no blood testing out weighed much of the later good.

That is the story modern young diabetics need to be encouraged by. Newly diag T1ds now can expect to live as long as a non t1d if managed well. Teaching them that managing the T1d well now will lead to better easier management as the tech improves, and maybe in the future we will learn enough to actually address the immune issue. Will provide a better long term outcome to new T1ds today. Then getting hopes up for a cure just around the corner, dose. T1ds have a long history of negative humer and giving up the battle. Bad Science articles like this and worse still medicle professionals that fail to understand the actual; status of research. Maker that much worse.

This fails to answer the biggest question.

For most T1D is not about not producing insulin. That is a symptom. Not the desease.

Its a genetic condition where the immune system attacks insulin producing cells. Pancras transplants have existed since the 90s. In most cases the patients become t1d again the future.

As t1ds have already done this to there own insulin producing cells. How dose adding our own reprogrammed stem cells help long term?

While it may help long term. IE when we have a sullution to the autoimmune condition. It is at best a step towards a cure.

A valid point. But the result is that over a pretty short period of time. These C developers will find delays in how quickly their code gets accepted into stable branches etc. So will be forced to make clear documentation into how the refactoring effects other elements calling the code. Or move on altogether.

Sorta advantageous to all and a necessary way to proceed when others are using your code.