>>695
are there any PCs that use an ARM chip?

>>699
There are desktop computers with Arm CPUs but they are not aimed at regular users. For example, here is this beast: https://store.avantek.co.uk/avantek-thunderx2-arm-workstation-thunderx2station.html

There are laptops with Arm chips now that run Windows on Arm, but last time I heard about it they couldn't get GNU/Linux on it.

>>695
As far as I know, Arm GPUs don't have Free drivers. Do you happen to know about something like that?

>>702
>There are desktop computers with Arm CPUs but they are not aimed at regular users.
If you want a arm desktop you should just get a SBC: https://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/single-board-computers

>There are laptops with Arm chips now that run Windows on Arm, but last time I heard about it they couldn't get GNU/Linux on it.
This is incorrect, there are many arm laptops that ship with GNU/Linux natively, many Chromebooks are examples of this, they also ship with coreboot by default making them more free than just about anything else. The ASUS C201 being one that can be librebooted, but requires a external wireless adapter and has a low quality keyboard.

>As far as I know, Arm GPUs don't have Free drivers. Do you happen to know about something like that?
At minimum there are many Mali, Adreno, Videocore, and Vivante GPUs with open source drivers available. There are plenty of options.

If you've got a excess of capital and you're worried about performance you could also get a Raptor system with are based off IBM Power: https://www.raptorcs.com/content/BK1B02/intro.html

>>704
I just noticed my FSF link there wasn't to actual SBCs just to SOCs. Just to keep the list reasonable and useful I'll list all those computers with open source hardware, which have CPU/GPU combinations which not only are open source but which don't have any GPL violations, and are capable of running a full desktop system.
http://www.banana-pi.org/m1.html
https://www.olimex.com/Products/OLinuXino/A20/A20-OLinuXino-LIME2/
All the Cubieboards except for 4 and 5: http://cubieboard.org/model/
https://www.crowdsupply.com/sutajio-kosagi/novena
https://www.raptorcs.com/content/BK1B02/intro.html (this actually goes further than the others here to have a entirely opensource extremely fast CPU)

>>2544 Look at the steam hardware survey and go for the most commonly used hardware , this way you will get a system with reasonably good compatibility for most games since game developers use this data when they decide what hardware they should support so that they can have the broadest audience. And if a load of people are using a particular CPU or GPU then that means it is probably not complete rubbish. https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam

It looks like to me you are gonna need a whole new screen ribbon cables and all. Shouldn't be much like you said.

I only ever used Lubuntu for old computers and it works quite well (don't expect to be able to watch video on YouTube at more than 480p though). I've heard nice thing about Bhodi but never tried it.

>>270 >(don't expect to be able to watch video on YouTube at more than 480p though) That'd still be an issue of the hardware tho and not the OS (I've used Lubuntu playing HD clips fine on my laptops with 4GB of RAM).

>>270 I have shitty laptop too but minimal devuan with dwm helps alot

>>271 Yes I know, I was just saying that while Lubuntu can give an 10 years+ computer a new life, it can't do much about resource intensive websites like YouTube (there's always the great program YouTube-dl for that).

>>268 Because I'm buddhist

test

>make every program live in its own folder, store all data and configs there <nah that's boring let's rather mix all programs' file together in a single hierarchy, first it'll require package managers to manage this mess, there will be hundreds of those, and most of them won't be compatible, and later we'll move on to distributing whole package-manager-produced "mixtures" of program files, and we'll call these mixtures "containers" and we'll also create container managers and yes we fucking will overcomplicate them too, and there will literally be jobs devoted entirely to configuring this garbage

>>2540 Containers also enforce process isolation. Yes, this is only necessary because the unix security model is shit and if there was a God GNU/HURD would have killed it in the 90s.

>>2540 fuuuuck. that, plus this insanity >>2536 Docker should've just been a way to configure linux builds, plus a way to vm it locally. What's the point of spinning up a machine only to spin a new machine inside it. Makes no sense. Kubernetes might be useful, but it seems like container software's fetish is BDSM, it likes to torture users with shit documentation, so I wouldn't fucking know. Talking about shit documentation, FUCK aws, especially all that terraforming bullshit. Mix it all together and you get a bullet to your brain. untyped dynamic made-in-two-weeks javascript using 3 libraries which somehow made your node_modules folder be 1.6GB non-deterministic npm builds because fuck you. good luck trying to debug why docker isn't caching your npm build and having to rebuild a huge dependency you don't even use (why does this accent parser library depend on ChartJS???). oof, then find through the billion articles how to deploy a container on aws. There must be a pre built solution or at least a good tutotial, right? no, fuck you. oh but now you need a worker (or you bought into the microservices bullshit). motherfucking good luck making your containers talk. how sure are you about your topology now? are they in the same server or are they in a LAN? how many servers are deployed at the moment? can you ssh in or retrieve logs somehow? fuck kubernetes, don't even want to know what it does.

>aws Don't use proprietary shit.

bump

It looks wrong, I don't like it

pics?

>>2528 theres a demo app linked in the readme https://www.supremereality.us/

>>322 CLI based?

>>317 Mainly because of bloat, but that is just a matter of taste. Luckily, there is no need to decide ultimately, both are good software and bridgeable: https://gitlab.com/uhoreg/matrix-appservice-prosody

>>323 There's matrixcli and weechat-matrix

>>325 Though I would advise usage of the 'Riot' client, as that is the most up-to-date as of now.

>>2309 ITT: Tor noobs who don't understand tor. having control of an exit node by itself is about as useful as having no legs. In order to be effective you need access to both an entry and exit node so you can do timing correlation attacks and that is much MUCH more difficult and costly. >>2308 OP here, I make suggestions about hardening firefox. If you want to use normal tor browser that is fine, but, you are pretty limited on what you can do with it, also, you can't use I2P, freenet, or Zeronet with it, so, might has well learn to harden firefox.

>>2310 The NSA has a huge budget and therefore can do timing corellation attacks, also those aren't the only attacks they can pull off. I know that you can't do much with just an exit node, the problem is that it's very easy and cheap for the NSA to buy lots of compromized nodes in a lot of countries, so it's more likely that the will not only have an exit node. If you take a look at the tor metrics you will see that the vast majority of the nodes are in the 14 eyes countries, aka countries that the NSA is authorized to operate. If you connect to the tor network with the tor rowser you can see which tor nodes you are using, take a look, it's more than likely that at least two of the nodes you are connecting to are located within the 14 eyes.

>>2311 Yeah bu8t the way tor opperates is it randomly decifers what entry node you are going to be using, also, there are bridges, also, tor entry nodes are protected and legitimized by tor administrators themselves. That's why they call them Guard nodes. Do you know the ammount of man power it would take to corrilate an entry and exit node? The NSA would have to already have you as a target and some how know and control the guard node that you are connecting through. Very unlikely.

>>2312 where did you get that tor guard nodes are legitimized by the tor staff? All it says in the tor wiki is "To become a guard, a relay has to be stable and fast (at least 2MByte/s) otherwise it will remain a middle relay." In fact one of the reasons why tor's guard nodes stay the same for some period of time is to minimize the risk of falling on an exit node controlled by people with malicious intent i.e. governments, read the attached pdf. Also the NSA has a brand new facility in utah to analyze and decrypt data, some of it definitely caught in tor. As for corrilating a guard and an exit node, depending on the number of controlled nodes they have could happen at random, without them having to do pretty much anything.

>>2313 Yeah but the guard relays have to actually be chosen to be put on the network and used as a guard relay. They are trusted relays. That's how they become guard relays. There is a talk that ISIS does about on youtube. I haven't watched it in quite a while, but, it's the only lecture she has ion youtube. Decyrpting data is also, impossible, unless these people have quantum computers, which, they may, but, with the information I have I don't think that is going to happen. That's why no one can point to a time the actual tor network itself has faltered. If you can I would like too see it.

>>2449
OP is trying to make a new imageboard sowftware, If you want to make oneyourself, try using LynxChan

It's amusing to me that the formatting on this site managed to become even more broken, and that this somehow managed to effect posts already stored in the database; this thread is hideous now. Anyway I made a good bit more progress on this project but decided to abandon it. My justification was that while the left needs to establish new hegemonic institutions, of which social-media is probably the strongest modern example, these institutions are worthless unless you're willing to use the power these institutions hold to enforce your will, and I simply don't have the time to realistically do this. Another issue is that the internet probably reflecting modern cultural trends (as promoted by the bourgeoisie) is hedonist and obsessed with the spectacle (not to mention least common denominator politics like social democracy), these cultural traits would be very difficult to overcome, and require rules that would be especially costly to enforce. For now I'm going to be focusing on improving my skills, I've recently been studying GADTs, existential types, type-level programming, eta-reduction and all sorts of interesting things in addition to my standard mathematics studies, hopefully my improved skills will be useful to us in the future. In any case, I will likely stop posting on this forum or any other forum, and it's fair to assume that any posts from this point on anywhere on the internet are not me. I wish you all the best, good bye. >>2449 >hey I haven't read the thread, but, how hard is it? It's a pretty simple web application, not particularly difficult so long as you don't obsesses over the details (which I tend to do). I'd only ever made two static sites before this and I was still able to make CSS that was superior to any imageboard I was able to find, and the backend was very clean if incomplete despite my programming experience having nothing to do with the internet. >>2450 >OP is trying to make a new imageboard sowftware, If you want to make one yourself, try using LynxChan. Just to be clear using LynxChan isn't creating a new image-board engine, which was my intent.

>>2451 Sad to hear that, good luck on your next projects anon tho >Just to be clear using LynxChan isn't creating a new image-board engine, which was my intent. Oh yeah I know, I was just telling him to use it if he wants to make a new imageboard

feature request make threads look good in firefox's reader mode

>>2453 lol nvm just saw this wasn't happening anymore RIP

>>2260
sauce?

>>2263
Jahy-sama wa Kujikenai!

>>2679
I actually know a bit of Clojure, and the backstory. I agree with what you mention about the persistent data-structures and concurrency being built-in rather than in libraries is a advantage, all be it a rather minor one to me. I disagree with the idea that Common Lisp having Lists makes it slow, in practice Common Lisp programmers use whatever data-structures are most performant for their applications, including using mutability to increase performance when applicable. Also it's possible that Clojure is simpler than Common Lisp, but it's not simpler than Scheme. You can (and I have) literally read the Scheme specification in a few hours, and understand the guarantees and primitives of the whole language across implementations. Trading the Common Lisp ecosystem for Java's might be advantageous depending on the application though.

>>2680
>You can (and I have) literally read the Scheme specification in a few hours

including all the SRFI? If your argument is that you can write a basic lisp interpreter as a side project or for a class then yes scheme is simpler but in addition to the SRFI to make scheme usable you have things like for example in Racket Scheme which have to implement lots of additional stuff to make scheme into a practically usable language (for web dev).

Scheme is like the C of lisps
Common Lisp is like the C++ of lisps
Clojure is like the Java of lisps

If you had to choose for example an embedded language for scripting a video game, scheme or lua might be good.

I probably wouldn't use scheme for doing modern web dev, because there are myriad of toy implementations. When you try to sell jim the JS developer on lisp, hes gonna flip his shit when he can't find the GraphQL library

>in practice Common Lisp programmers use whatever data-structures are most performant for their applications

sure but all good programmers choose whatever data structures are the most performant for their task. Its not just about what a language allows but what it steers average coders into in. rockstars can write good code in any language

>using mutability to increase performance when applicable.

theres a lot of strategies that let you rewrite functional code into mutable efficient code under the hood and most functional languages use these

Common lisp is a more complete overall language (other than concurrency) and Scheme is easier to understand, but as far as tooling, practicality, ease of use, and popularity Clojure definitely wins hands down. Other than emacs lisp Clojure probably has the most lines of code written of any of the lisps today.

>>2681
>The SRFI to make scheme usable you have things like for example in Racket Scheme which have to implement lots of additional stuff to make scheme into a practically usable language (for web dev).
The SRFI's are just libraries, Racket isn't a Scheme anymore, and really the only extensions you need to RnRS to have a language quite capable of web development is POSIX support, threads, and probably a FFI. Many Scheme implementations have these things. Regarding Libraries you should look at Chicken Scheme: http://eggs.call-cc.org/5/#lang-exts https://github.com/lassik/graphql-chicken Not that this isn't all besides the point because your claim was that Scheme was more complex than Clojure which is simply not true.

>Its not just about what a language allows but what it steers average coders into in. rockstars can write good code in any language
I don't think as a programmer you should care about how a language steers average developers. Ease of doing something does matter, and you're going to have a slight cost by going into quicklisp and installing a library for some of the things Clojure has built in but it's not significant. Regardless the average Common Lisp programmer cares a great deal about performance, and they tend to write very fast applications.

>theres a lot of strategies that let you rewrite functional code into mutable efficient code under the hood and most functional languages use these
I don't think this is true, you can do this if you have Linear/Quantitative types but otherwise you're going to be giving up any concurrency guarantees you have, if you do this behind the back of the programmer (which is sort of the main point of writing in a functional style at this point).

>Common lisp is a more complete overall language (other than concurrency) and Scheme is easier to understand, but as far as tooling, practicality, ease of use, and popularity Clojure definitely wins hands down.
I think this is probably a fair assessment so long as you recognize that Clojure has these advantages only for a single problem domain. It has better tooling, practicality, and ease of use for web development and nothing else. Additionally I don't think the advantages it has in this department are that significant.

>>2682
COMMON LISP BTFO

RH'S epic talk on clojure vs common lisp (2 parts)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDm-QDEXGEA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mbcYxHO0nM

>>2683
>Common Lisp btfo
Not really, it was mostly just a overview, and as I said I already knew a good bit of Clojure. Pretty much all his arguments are rendered null by (ql:quickload "fset") or are insignificant to the point of not mattering. Porky likes JVM is another part of his reasoning. Some of the abstractions mentioned are cool, but don't really matter, it's basically just sugar. Not particularly interesting to me. I can't be bothered to watch the second video provided. Anyway I'm getting pretty bored talking about this, I feel I've made a quite solid case, so I'll probably stop now.