Jeroba only flips the instance domain, that is way more wild

IPv6 is missing from my networking meme 😞

Glad you got it working. It’s not exactly the most straight forward setup unless you use virt manager a lot.

Virt manager does but only during creation. You have to check the option for “customize VM before creation” or whatever that option is on the last screen. Then there’s a firmware drop down where you can select OVMF

I don’t believe pika supports booting from a BIOS as almost no real systems have a BIOS anymore, especially not the target systems pika is designed for. You likely need to switch to UEFI firmware in qemu, possibly installing the ovmf package if you don’t already have it and then switching to that firmware in whatever VM manager you’re running

Yeah, personally I’m against that. It’s why I GPL my software

The fact that they’re doing it MIT shows they aren’t really trying to just rewrite it in rust for technical merits, there are ulterior motives

The most depressing thing about this for me wasn’t all the AI satire… although it was quite amusing. It’s the fact that in 2026 the endpoint is still IPv4 😭

Wonder if you use kpartx to read the partition table instead of having the kernel do it if you’d have more luck?

but really we need to stop these laws from happening in the first place. I will grant that the poster does not attribute foot nor bad to the situation.

What I think everyone is trying to tell you is that nobody is disagreeing with this sentiment. These laws are bad, I doubt the poster of the article would disagree. What is trying to be said here is if these laws go into affect (which is bad), and they exempt Linux (which seems good), they will quite possibly condemn Linux to an even smaller niche of tech nerds than it already belongs to and that is bad for Linux being a desktop platform, and it may be better for Linux to comply for its survival as a desktop platform. That is all that’s being said here, nobody is arguing the merits of the laws.

Command line browsers do exist but are usually worse than the others mentioned in terms of site support.

Yes, you CAN stop there, the other qualifiers I added were specifically because C sort of assumes those to be present and while there are C to bf compilers they emulate that functionality on top of the more restrictive, but turing complete, architecture. I was listing the things C assumes/requires the hardware to be able to do for reasonable performance and compilers not emulating features.

These are not language features but features of the C standard library and are only required if you wish to use said library, they have little to do with hardware requirements or the language itself

You aren’t wrong but classically a high level language is one that is abstracted from the hardware which is precisely why C is considered high level. You don’t have to think about registers, instructions, stacks, etc, you just call functions with arguments and write “high level” code. It’s on the lower end compared to modern very high level languages but it’s still considered high level. Classically most non-assembly languages are.

Yeah, I get both sides too, I also want Linux to be successful but I’m just disappointed this is what we’re resorting to. Although I guess as long as I don’t have to use it it’s probably for the greater good?

I already don’t compile it in…I’m just stating my opinion. I don’t think that should be something in the kernel. I complain, but I also do something about it.

It’s not a scheduler issue, it’s a windows apps do thread synchronization differently to linux apps. Additionally fsync in the vast majority of use cases works just fine, the article notes most performance comparisons are against vanilla wine synchronization, i.e. without fsync or even esync. Regardless I still don’t think the kernel should be emulating windows scheduling behavior.

I’ve honestly not heard that particular argument for why C isn’t low level. I’m not even sure I see what design choices they made which are PDP specific. C seems to fit pretty well on top of computer architecture as a whole. As long as you’re turing complete, have RAM, and the ability to issue function calls you basically have everything you need for C. The main reason I’m familiar with for why it’s high level is because it’s ISA independent. C comes from a time where most software was written in assembly and so highly CPU specific. C isn’t that, you write C for one platform and it works everywhere, just need a recompile (provided all the APIs you use are available)

No, that’s not quite the same thing, I fundamentally don’t think it should be Linux’s goal to be a good windows emulator. It’s fine if wine exists and people use wine for that, but I don’t think that should be a goal for the kernel, this starts pushing into that territory. Hardware support very much is the Kernel’s job and modules which benefit it should be there if it’s meaningful

A lot of people like to call C low level, maybe in modern times that’s fair? It misses the historical context of why it’s not usually considered one though and it’s ultimately sort of relative.

I mean…the code isn’t copied but the design is and it honestly frustrates me. Like yes Linux performance is improving…but I personally don’t like adding kernel functionality specifically for the benefit of wine

Weirdly and oppositely this is actually how bees reproduce. Fertilized eggs become female, unfertilized become male