TIL: in rxvt-unicode, holding meta ("alt") while middle-clicking copies from the CLIPBOARD buffer rather than from PRIMARY, which is awesome!

@rauschma
Dutch

IOW, having part of your language that can't be dynamically linked doesn't mean that's true for all of it, nor that there is no benefit at all.

I don't know though about rust to have a meaningful discussion about its ability to benefit from dynamic linking but if it relies on code generation to a large extent then yes obviously it becomes complicated.
@hrw @kornel

@kornel
Oh, I see now what you mean.

Yes, if you want to do any type of code generation, be that C++ templating, C preprocessor macros, or eval-type stuff in scripting languages, you can't do dynamic libraries for those parts of your language. In C++, the STL is typically header-only for that reason, but C++ still has a substantial standard library that is dynamic.
@hrw

@kornel
C++ actually does support dynamic linking. On POSIX systems it does this by encoding the argument types into the symbol name. Not sure how it works on Windows but most of Windows is C++ and it does have DLLs so clearly it's possible.

Dynamic linking is really just mmap() plus a lookup table of symbol name to compiled code. It's not rocket science and absolutely not C specific, but it does require a reasonably stable ABI to make it work.
@hrw

@jpmens
Ohhhh, so you are a vulnerability researcher then? Awesome.
@shaft

@HerveRenault
That will create a lot more reflections though
@sundogplanets

@harld
Dus er zijn vier categorieën voor het kleinste continent maar heel Afrika wordt wel op één pot nat gegooid.

Zuid-Afrika is niet het zelfde als pakweg Zimbabwe. 🤷

@BalooUriza
My guess is that's why @corbet called them "CVE numbers" and not "security vulnerabilities"...
@corbet

@veronica
It's not just Debian though, these are all upstream CVEs...

@orrery
The next day this perhaps comes across more spicy than it was intended. Let me clarify

I'm saying that I've always felt there is a significant part of the community that is here not for the freedom arguments but because of the higher quality/free as in beer marketing the OSI came up with.

So it's on trend to me that these things are happening, even though I'm with you that it's not what you'd want.
@xgranade

@orrery
> "Free/Libre Open-Source Software" should, at least in theory, promote freedom and liberty.
Well, yes, except for the bit where "open source" was never more than just a ploy to get capitalists to care about free software. That worked, until suddenly it didn't.
@xgranade

@lettosprey
(This is, occasionally, also why I'm trying to convince the powers that be at $DAYJOB to look into self-hosting rather than relying on hosted LLMs: so I can experiment with the available models and potentially also work on making them more attractive than the hosted ones)
@xgranade

@lettosprey
> The "run at home" LLM's are not exactly much to get excited about.

Certainly true several months ago, and probably true today (more so from an ideological than a technical pov).

I feel the way out of this mess though is through this. If we "run at home" LLMs are competitive with hosted ones, then when the bubble bursts and big tech must hike their prices, not even the people most convinced will want to use them anymore.
@xgranade

@lettosprey
> It doesn't matter that "big tech are not the only ones that can...", when projects use their LLM's (...)

Absolutely. I am 100% with you that free software should not be beholden to big tech. Unfortunately "open source" was always a ploy to get big tech to embrace free software, and so depending on why you are here, you might not care as much. ("You" as in the hypothetical open source developer, not you personally)
@xgranade

@lettosprey
> You don't need to understand every ones position on this.

True, but I genuinely wanted to, and because you and others kindly took the time, I do believe I understand the position better now; or if not, then at least it no longer feels logically inconsistent to me. Thank you for that.
@xgranade

@lettosprey
Am I correct in stating that it's more an anti-big tech position, then? That makes more sense to me.

I don't think it's entirely an accurate position, as it would imply that (a) only big tech can run LLMs, and (b) all of FLOSS is anti-big tech, both of which I believe are accurate statements, but I can better understand that position of that's what it is.
@xgranade

@xgranade
Not trying to be obtuse here, but:

Why does this feel like betrayal to you?

I understand the desire to not use llm-generated code (though I don't share that desire). I don't understand your use of the term 'betrayal' here though.

Not to say that your opinion is invalid! Just... I feel like I must be missing something here.