@voltagex in my experience working with computers, persistent is basically the same as smart
@voltagex
This only works for arrays allocated on the stack, not for a pointer to a 40-byte region, as for that sizeof(x) returns the size of the pointer, which is a constant that has nothing to do with the size of your array.
I'm sure you didn't need to know any of that, but now you do 😂
This only works for arrays allocated on the stack, not for a pointer to a 40-byte region, as for that sizeof(x) returns the size of the pointer, which is a constant that has nothing to do with the size of your array.
I'm sure you didn't need to know any of that, but now you do 😂
@voltagex
It's a standard trick to get the number of elements in an array:
sizeof(x) returns the allocated memory for the whole of the array. If your array has 10 elements and an element is a 32-bit int, then it returns 10 (elements) times 4 (bytes in a 32-bit int) = 40
sizeof(x[0]) dereferences the array to get the size of the first element. So in the same example, you get back 4.
Dividing 40 by 4 yields 10, the number of elements
It's a standard trick to get the number of elements in an array:
sizeof(x) returns the allocated memory for the whole of the array. If your array has 10 elements and an element is a 32-bit int, then it returns 10 (elements) times 4 (bytes in a 32-bit int) = 40
sizeof(x[0]) dereferences the array to get the size of the first element. So in the same example, you get back 4.
Dividing 40 by 4 yields 10, the number of elements
@zrb "losing all your data" is A backup strategy, it's just not a good one
@lxo
Great. I'm glad that you find my suggestions acceptable and that you can see the benefits in them.
If there's anything I can do to help with making that a reality... I can't promise to do much but I can try, and would be happy to be kept in the loop regardless. s/pleroma.debian.social/debian.org/ for my email.
Also, thanks for ignoring the accidentally missed 'non' in my last post. No we don't want to rid the world of free software 😲😂
@mjg59
Great. I'm glad that you find my suggestions acceptable and that you can see the benefits in them.
If there's anything I can do to help with making that a reality... I can't promise to do much but I can try, and would be happy to be kept in the loop regardless. s/pleroma.debian.social/debian.org/ for my email.
Also, thanks for ignoring the accidentally missed 'non' in my last post. No we don't want to rid the world of free software 😲😂
@mjg59
@lxo
I just came up with these during my breakfast this morning. I'm sure you can come up with more if you need to.
The point is to reward and encourage people to rid the world of free software. I know you want this. I want this.
Or, I don't know, your can keep your head in the sand and wait until the fsf is completely irrelevant because everyone knows they don't really care about free software.
🤷
@mjg59
I just came up with these during my breakfast this morning. I'm sure you can come up with more if you need to.
The point is to reward and encourage people to rid the world of free software. I know you want this. I want this.
Or, I don't know, your can keep your head in the sand and wait until the fsf is completely irrelevant because everyone knows they don't really care about free software.
🤷
@mjg59
@lxo
In this, have some allowance so that hardware manufacturers don't have to choose between losing the ryf badge or destroying stock when someone announces free firmware for something not in their device.
Introduce bonus points, or stars on the badge, or some such, for each piece of free firmware that's used by the device. Simple, but could be effective.
@mjg59
In this, have some allowance so that hardware manufacturers don't have to choose between losing the ryf badge or destroying stock when someone announces free firmware for something not in their device.
Introduce bonus points, or stars on the badge, or some such, for each piece of free firmware that's used by the device. Simple, but could be effective.
@mjg59
@lxo
But there are more things you could do. Here are some more suggestions:
Make the ryf program a multi tiered program, with the lower tier being the current situation and the higher tier not allowing non free firmware. Initially you won't have many submissions for this higher tier. That's fine. Some people will aspire to get there, and start working on free firmware. Even if they fail, they still may do stuff that improves the world.
@mjg59
But there are more things you could do. Here are some more suggestions:
Make the ryf program a multi tiered program, with the lower tier being the current situation and the higher tier not allowing non free firmware. Initially you won't have many submissions for this higher tier. That's fine. Some people will aspire to get there, and start working on free firmware. Even if they fail, they still may do stuff that improves the world.
@mjg59
@lxo
So your goal, as the fsf, should be to come up with a plan to eradicate that non free software. I know it will be an uphill battle, but the whole GNU project was an uphill battle and that never stopped you before. It shouldn't stop you now.
I already made a few suggestions as to how you could use the ryf program to make that happen. You dismissed some of those options for reasons that I agree make sense.
@mjg59
So your goal, as the fsf, should be to come up with a plan to eradicate that non free software. I know it will be an uphill battle, but the whole GNU project was an uphill battle and that never stopped you before. It shouldn't stop you now.
I already made a few suggestions as to how you could use the ryf program to make that happen. You dismissed some of those options for reasons that I agree make sense.
@mjg59
@lxo
You (the fsf, not you personally) came up with a rule that allows you to ignore the fact that it is there so you can live your live with computing infrastructure that is under your control for as much as possible. I get that.
But I know that you know, deep down, if you are honest with yourself, that the non free software is still there and that the rule is an illusion.
@mjg59
You (the fsf, not you personally) came up with a rule that allows you to ignore the fact that it is there so you can live your live with computing infrastructure that is under your control for as much as possible. I get that.
But I know that you know, deep down, if you are honest with yourself, that the non free software is still there and that the rule is an illusion.
@mjg59
@lxo
I'm not sure you're getting what I'm saying, so I'm going to give it one more try and then just give up.
I'm not going to insult your intelligence by doing a socratean dialogue here. I know you know that non free firmware is software, and that as it is not free, it would be better if it were made free.
@mjg59
I'm not sure you're getting what I'm saying, so I'm going to give it one more try and then just give up.
I'm not going to insult your intelligence by doing a socratean dialogue here. I know you know that non free firmware is software, and that as it is not free, it would be better if it were made free.
@mjg59
@mirabilos
This was just after we founded our company and it was just fun to do
@miodvallat @spaceraser
This was just after we founded our company and it was just fun to do
@miodvallat @spaceraser
@lxo
It's modifiable, therefore it's software, therefore it should be free.
That's consistent and makes sense.
Yes that's difficult to reach today. The GNU project has accepted similar compromises in similar situations in the past, and a hardware certification program that encourages that could go a long way into fixing that.
But sure, tell me I need to go cripple the Debian kernel instead of admitting you were wrong.
@mjg59
It's modifiable, therefore it's software, therefore it should be free.
That's consistent and makes sense.
Yes that's difficult to reach today. The GNU project has accepted similar compromises in similar situations in the past, and a hardware certification program that encourages that could go a long way into fixing that.
But sure, tell me I need to go cripple the Debian kernel instead of admitting you were wrong.
@mjg59
@lxo
Oh come now. The ryf program is a hardware certification badge. Why would you create a hardware certification badge if you weren't trying to influence hardware manufacturers?
I vehemently disagree with you that your stance is consistent. If it's theoretically updatable, it's software. Artificially crippling your hardware so that you can't update it anymore it's like putting your fingers in your ears and going "La La La can't hear you"
@mjg59
Oh come now. The ryf program is a hardware certification badge. Why would you create a hardware certification badge if you weren't trying to influence hardware manufacturers?
I vehemently disagree with you that your stance is consistent. If it's theoretically updatable, it's software. Artificially crippling your hardware so that you can't update it anymore it's like putting your fingers in your ears and going "La La La can't hear you"
@mjg59
@lxo
This is not the strategy that the fsf chose to make, and that's fine. It also won't work every time, and that's also fine. But some people will be convinced, and become a member of the community, and that's a good thing.
I do think that having blobs is fine if there is no alternative, for very much the same reasons as why the GNU project started off by accepting non free kernels while replacements were being written.
@mjg59
This is not the strategy that the fsf chose to make, and that's fine. It also won't work every time, and that's also fine. But some people will be convinced, and become a member of the community, and that's a good thing.
I do think that having blobs is fine if there is no alternative, for very much the same reasons as why the GNU project started off by accepting non free kernels while replacements were being written.
@mjg59