@_Nidouille_@alpinelinux Tant qu'il y a des utilisateurs de Alpine Linux, il n'y a pas de raison que ça s'arrête du jour au lendemain.
C'est si les gens décident "pour des raisons" d'arrêter de l'utiliser qu'on peut arriver à terme des problèmes. Mais c'est loin d'être le cas.
@_Nidouille_ Il y a bien plus que 2 personnes pour @alpinelinux (si tu considère les "developpers"). Après, le risque est partout, i.e Clear Linux; et il existe aujourd'hui un intérêt autour de Alpine Linux (containers), il y a peu de chance que ça disparaisse du jour au lendemain.
@oxcrowx@vaxryy To be fair, it sounds like CoC is weaponized (to "solve" a organisation disagreement) rather than used for its actual purpose. He needs to give much more explanations and context.
@teromee@BrodieOnLinux It's not exclusive to Rust to have abstractions that hide "raw memory allocations". Most C projects relies on libraries to do things like hashmaps, dynamic arrays, whatever else... Even the OS abstracts you a lot on what happens behind the scenes with memory allocations.
@msimoni Fil-C is way too young to be able to be taken seriously. Also, Git and Linux starts adopting Rust for various reasons, but not definetely for power; note that such effort driven/acknowledged by main project maintainers, not by "random people".
@errellion There is PVHVM and PVH (showing up as "pvh" in Xen Orchestra). PVHVM is quite quirky and has issues related to Viridian and cd drive.
PVH is setup like for PV (provision netbsd-GENERIC.gz (or installer one)), the only special thing is
xe vm-param-set uuid={UUID} domain-type=pvh
@errellion If you boot from the kernel file directly (i.e not through pygrub); you should be able to use the netbsd-GENERIC kernel and boot with PVH instead. Latest updates in 'testing' improves PVH and I managed to make NetBSD 10.1 work (though documentation still lacks on that area).
@errellion Sorry for the unfortunate experience of NetBSD PV on XCP-ng 8.3. For the PV-in-PVH case, I will try to see if we can improve the situation as PV-in-PVH is supposed to be a compatibility shim for these cases.
@_Nidouille_ Bon, ceci dit, les prérequis de Windows 11 restent tout de même une vaste blague (TPM 2.0 notamment).
C'est pas comparable à exiger l'UEFI ou un processeur d'au moins 2010.
@spendergrsec Maybe the time for rc reviews should be longer, and people that actually cares about stable branches needs to put more effort on reviewing (instead of assuming everything will always be done perfectly).
@spendergrsec I don't think it is a AI problem but more a process problem (and eventually C language one for some aspects). Regardless on how the backport patch is made, it needs to be promptly reviewed by 3rd parties (not only the backporter) so that buggy backports don't slip through.