A lower cost option with things you may not need removed is excellent, but why on earth do they feel the need to make these 8000 series when everything else zen 4 is 7000? Its not the first time they’ve done this and it feels purposefully misleading.
If you’re messing with ACLs I’m not sure deduplication will help you much; I believe (not much experience with reflinks) the dedup checksum will include the metadata, so changing ACLs might ruin any benefit. Even if you don’t change the ACLs, as soon as somebody updates a game, it’s checksum will change and won’t converge back when everyone else updates.
Even hardlinks preserve the ACL… Maybe symlinks to the folder containing the game’s data, then the symlinks could have different ACLs?
I actually found the opposite with my steam library; on ZFS with ZSTD I only saw a ratio of 1.1 for steamapps, not that there’s really any meaningful performance penalty for compressing it.
So this is a system-wide DNS hijack for the purpose of filtering and monitoring?
So say an attacker can enable this service, would they then be able to redirect any DNS query regardless of if DNS over TLS + DNSSEC are configured? Surely I’m reading this wrong
I’ve seen some optometry equipment running RHEL
Yeah in the short term there are going to be a lot of lose/lose scenarios for them, but this is the stupid prize for playing stupid games with what they released.
I hope they stock it out, games like No Man’s Sky show both that a developer who cares enough to try can earn back the trust of a player base, and that the process to do so requires a lot of work.
deleted by creator
No, I’m saying that when people run into strange bugs, sometimes they put together an issue (like the person behind cve-rs), and sometimes they quietly work around it because they’re busy.
Seeing as I don’t often trawl through issues on the language git, neither really involve notifying me specifically.
My lack of an anecdote does not equate to anecdotal evidence of no issue, just that I haven’t met every rust developer.
Yes, the problems rust is solving are already solved under different constraints. This is not a spicy take.
The world isn’t clamoring to turn a go app into rust specifically for the memory safety they both enjoy.
Systems applications are still almost exclusively written in C & C++, and they absolutely do run into memory bugs. All the time. I work with C almost exclusively for my day job (with shell and rust interspersed), and while tried and tested C programs have far fewer memory bugs than when they were first made, that means the bugs you do find are by their nature more painful to diagnose. Eliminating a whole class of problems in-language is absolutely worth the hype.
If someone did, why would I hear of it?
The code used in cve-rs is not that complicated, and it’s not out of the realm of possibility that somebody would use lifetimes like this if they had just enough knowledge to be dangerous.
I’m as much a rust evangelist as the next guy, but part of having excellent guard rails is loudly pointing out subtle breakages that can cause hard to diagnose issues.
Strangely, I’ve never had a crime issue in CS2, even with 140k+ pop and barely any cop shops.
I recently bought a 7800 XT for the same reason, NVIDIA drivers giving me trouble in games and generally making it harder to maintain my system. Unfortunately I ran headfirst into the 6.6 reset bug that made general usage an absolute nightmare.
Open source drivers are still miles ahead of NVIDIA’s binary blob if only because I could shift to 6.7 when it released to fix it, but I guess GPU drivers are always going to be GPU drivers.
But it’s not a binary “we’re fucked” or “we’re fine”, it’s an ever worsening gradient of terrible conditions. Even within that, how many people get the brunt of it depends on the extent of the damage.
The link you posted has nothing to do with this SoC?
You’re not going to get 2.5G over wireguard on the 3588, but you are definitely going to get over 1G.
Wireguard scales well with cores, but due to the way big.LITTLE is implemented on the 3588, it could lose performance if it tries to split the workload between core complexes.
I’m sure the developers are competent, but the reason I care about the design decisions is the same reason the electric brakes on cars don’t interface with its infotainment system; the interface inherently creates opportunities for out of spec behaviour and even if the introduced risk is tiny, the consequence is so bad that it’s worth avoiding.
If you have to have an airbag be controlled by software (ideally the mechanism is physical, like a pull tab), it should be an isolated real time device with monitoring your accelerometer and triggering the airbag be it’s only jobs. If it’s also waiting to hear back from another device about whether your subscription ran out before it starts checking, the risk of failure also has to consider that triggering device.
It can be done perfectly, but it’s software so of course it has bugs.
That information changes none of my issues; if you don’t see the plethora of potential implementation bugs involved, either you don’t code professionally or you shouldn’t be.
Yes, but also from an implementation perspective: if I’m making code that might kill somebody if it fails, I want it to be as deterministic and simple as possible. Under no circumstances do I want it:
deleted by creator
deleted by creator