Ah, I think, I know what you mean, that the format is supposed to be written with foolish oversimplifications that are borderline incorrect, whereas “secured by TLS” just sounds like a normal statement from an expert…

It’s mainly just a nicely polished app with rather many optional features and settings.

But well, at the end of the day, it does still just show a list of 6-digit-numbers, so it’s not revolutionarily different either…

I’m guessing that was supposed to be “secured by a thin layer of TLS”…

Yeah, have not heard about any of these problems before this post…

Back in 2010, the OpenOffice devs had to abandon that name for trademark reasons¹, so they renamed to LibreOffice and continued developing under that name.

OpenOffice theoretically also still exists, but it’s hardly getting updates. Unless you specifically like software from 2010 (including some security vulnerabilities, I believe), you want to use LibreOffice.

¹) The OpenOffice trademark was owned by Sun Microsystems, which got bought by Oracle. Oracle has a very bad reputation, so the devs did not care to wait around for Oracle to fuck everything up.

We deployed a client software in a Docker container on Windows 10. It could not connect to the backend, even though we saw SYN packages originating from it.
So, we ran WireShark on the Windows host and saw that the SYN-ACK packages from the backend were arriving there, too, but no ACK came through to complete the TCP handshake.

Eventually, we rolled out a network debugging container on that Windows host and then could see in the tcpdump, that the SYN-ACK packages, which arrived on the Windows host, just did not show up in the container. Hyper-V or something was quietly dropping them.

Other network connections were working fine, just the SYN-ACK from our backend triggered this.

Ah, I thought you mixed them up, because they both look Windows-y in their default configuration. 🙃

Mint doesn’t use KDE out of the box. They have an own DE called Cinnamon.

I have caught myself genuinely thinking that management needs to unearth more budget, if they so desperately want us to use these AI tools, so that we can onboard another person to compensate for the productivity hit.

Unfortunately, they believe the opposite to be true, that we just need to use AI tools and then our productivity will be through the roof…

I have not looked into these myself yet, but Apertus is supposed to be fully open: https://programming.dev/post/36791696

And I recently heard of StarCoder, which was also said to be like that and which is optimized for coding assistance: https://github.com/bigcode-project/starcoder

I also always find that outsourcing is risky, whether it’s to other devs or to some AI, because it requires that you understand the problem in whole upfront. In 99% of cases, when I’m implementing something myself, I will run into some edge case I had not considered before and where an important decision has to be made. And well, a junior or LLM is unlikely to see all these edge cases and to make larger decisions, that might affect the whole codebase.

I can try to spend more time upfront to come up with all these corner cases without starting on the implementation, but that quickly stops being economic, because it takes me more time than when I can look at the code.

I mean, for me, it’s also mostly a matter of us doing embedded(-adjacent) software dev. So far, my company would hardly ever choose one stack over another for performance/efficiency reasons. But yeah, maybe that is going to change in the future.

Large shared codebases never reflect a single design, but are always in some intermediate state between different software designs. How the codebase will hang together after an individual change is thus way more important than what ideal “north star” you’re driving towards.

Yeah, learned this the hard way. Came up with an architecture to strive for 1½ years ago. We shipped the last remaining refactorings two weeks ago. It has been a ride. Mostly a ride of perpetually being low-priority, because refactorings always are.

In retrospect, it would’ve likely been better to go for a half-assed architecture that requires less of a diff, while still enabling us to ship similar features. It’s not like the new architecture is a flawless fit either, after 1½ years of evolving requirements.

And ultimately, architecture needs to serve the team. What does not serve the team is 1½ years of architectural limbo.

I mean, don’t get me wrong, I also find startup time important, particularly with CLIs. But high memory usage slows down your application in other ways, too (not just other applications on the system). You will have more L1, L2 etc. cache misses. And the OS is more likely to page/swap out more of your memory onto the hard drive.

Of course, I don’t either sit in front of an application and can tell that it was a non-local NUMA memory access that caused a particular slowness, so I can understand not really being able to care for iterative improvements. But yeah, that is also why I quite like using an efficient stack outright. It just makes computers feel as fast as they should be, without me having to worry about it.

I don’t know what part of that is supposed to be an insult.

And the article may have talked of such stark differences, but I didn’t. I’m just saying that the resource usage is noticeably lower.

Yeah, you need to do tree-shaking with JavaScript to get rid of unused library code: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Glossary/Tree_shaking

I would expect larger corporate projects to do so. It is something that one needs to know about and configure, but if one senior webdev works on a project, they’ll set it up pretty quickly.

This isn’t Reddit. You don’t need to talk in absolutes.

Similar to WittyShizard, my experience is very different. Said Rust application uses 1200 dependencies and I think around 50 MB RAM. We had a Kotlin application beforehand, which used around 300 dependencies and 1 GB RAM, I believe. I would expect a JavaScript application of similar complexity to use a similar amount or more RAM.

And more efficient languages do have an effect on RAM usage, for example:

• Not using garbage collection means objects generally get cleared from RAM quicker.
• Iterating over substrings or list elements is likely to be implement more efficiently, for example Rust has string slices and explicit .iter() + .collect().
• People in the ecosystem will want to use the language for use-cases where efficiency is important and then help optimize libraries.
• You’ve even got stupid shit, for example in garbage-collected languages, it has traditionally been considered best practice, that if you’re doing async, you should use immutable data types and then always create a copy of them when you want to update them. That uses a ton of RAM for stupid reasons.

Yeah, gonna be interesting. Software companies working on consumer software often don’t need to care, because:

• They don’t need to buy the RAM that they’re filling up.
• They’re not the only culprit on your PC.
• Consumers don’t understand how RAM works nearly as well as they understand fuel.
• And even when consumers understand that an application is using too much, they may not be able to switch to an alternative either way, see for example the many chat applications written in Electron, none of which are interoperable.

I can see somewhat of a shift happening for software that companies develop for themselves, though. At $DAYJOB, we have an application written in Rust and you can practically see the dollar signs lighting up in the eyes of management when you tell them “just get the cheapest device to run it on” and “it’s hardly going to incur cloud hosting costs”.
Obviously this alone rarely leads to management deciding to rewrite an application/service in a more efficient language, but it certainly makes them more open to devs wanting to use these languages. Well, and who knows what happens, if the prices for Raspberry Pis and cloud hosting and such end up skyrocketing similarly.

The problem is that it sounds like a riddle. In a riddle, you’re traditionally supposed to work within the rules that you’ve been told. So, not thinking outside the box here is not an indication that the person isn’t capable of doing so.

Of course, if I encountered this problem in real life, I’d ask Carol from accounting to check the other room, while I flip the switches. But my instinctive answer was that it is not possible, because I assumed it to be a riddle and the provided rules did not allow a solution.

By “unit”, you probably mean a SystemD unit, right?