Is that a claudeism? IMO that's a perfectly natural trope that'd be at home in my voice or any of a million generic blog people I've read since long before AI. It is a linguistic trope, sure, but that's an unrelated criticism.
The thing with all AI-isms is that they all started humans, but we're apparently not allowed to use them anymore. Emily Dickinson obsessed with em-dashes, now they belong to ChatGPT.
I’ve never read comments, articles, books in LLM’s current style before LLMs, and somehow, since then, I read comments like these every other day. This phenomenon is way overblown at the minimum. And since nobody showed a counter example from before 2022 which can be confused as LLM generated (using em dashes was never in it self that) I tend to say that it never even existed.
It's more subtle than that. Human written articles are immediately recognisable and so you let your guard down and tropes like this are accepted. But AI writing occupies a part of the uncanny valley where the hairs on the back of your neck stand up a bit, and every AI-ism like this is like a branch snapping beneath your feet
There is just a very specific kind of enthusiastic/authoritative/nerd voice that claude and other LLMs do does that is so grating to me. Like it's trying to be super upbeat and engaging and it comes off as trying too hard and is just offputting. If people are going to use LLMs to write their articles for them I would rather they be more neutral in tone, it just feels so incincere to get a robot to try to impersonate a enthusiastic human.
I mainly object to AI writing when it’s excessively verbose. This was pretty information dense, a few AI-isms didn’t make it a waste of my time to read.
Yeah, I saw an oddly placed rule-of-three and closed the tab.
This website is going downhill, almost every blog post I open is just blatantly AI generated these days. It's like people don't have any self-awareness anymore, they just lazily prompt their AI to generate a post and then pat themselves on the back lol.
The point is that there was basically no reason to totally kill Wordpad in the way that they did. They're different products and the new Notepad is closer to the ideal version of Wordpad than what Notepad is supposed to be, and now there's no Notepad.
I can absolutely say that I've never had a showstopping problem with sysv. That is about 30 years as a unix & linux admin and developer.
The whole point of sysv is the components are too small and too simple to make it possible for "showstoppers". Each component, including init, does so little that there is no room for it to do something wrong that you as the end user at run-time don't have the final power to both diagnose and address. And to do so in a approximately infinite different ways that the original authors never had to try to think up and account for ahead of time.
You have god power to see into the workings, and modify them, 50 years later in some crazy new context that the original authors never imagined. Which is exactly why they did it that way, not by accident nor because it was cave man times and they would invent fancier wheels later.
You're tired of hearing complaints? People still complain because the problem did not go away. I'm tired of still having to live with the fact that all the major distros bought in to this crap and by now a lot of individual packages don't even pretend to support any other option, and my choices are now to eat this crap or go off and live in some totally unsupported hut in the wilderness.
You can just go on suffering the intolerable boring complaints as far as I'm concerned until you grow some consideration for anyone else to earn some for yourself.
Your points are well taken. Linux is far from perfect and people shouldn't worship it. sysvinit is inferior to BSD init in my view and there are other questionable design decisions.
The biggest problem is that people are being railroaded into one thing or the other by the strong arm of corporations instead of being given options. My system helps with that.
I won't support systemd/wayland/etc, but others easily can add that in to their version of the distro if they like and support it themselves without too much work, as it's designed to be forked by anyone.
Equally tiring is the “it works for me so stop complaining” replies, which do nothing to stop the complaints but do increase the probability of arguments. Want the complaint posts to stop? Suggesting that they’re in some way invalid is not the way.
Yeah, it’s so tiresome that other people have a philosophy different from mine which seems to have prevailed for now. Like ok so sorry. Systemd on linux is the worst of both worlds imho which apparently according to GP to which I’m progressively less entitled. I like NetBSD and its rc init and config system. Oh no systemd sore winners incoming!
> Not once in my career have I experienced a showstopping issue with systemd.
Like clockwork, we'd have a SystemD edge case cause a production-down incident at a (single!) customer site once per year. Inevitably, we'd burn anywhere from a half day to a week attempting to figure out WTF, and end up in some Github Issue where Systemd Project heavyweights go "Wow. Yeah, that looks bad. Maybe we should document it. Or fix it? IDK." and they'd do neither.
The project is full of accidental complexity that its maintainers can't be bothered to fix when unplanned interactions cause problems and are brought to their attention. I certainly don't blame them; that sort of work is only interesting to a very specific sort of personality, and that sort of personality doesn't tend to thrive in a typical software company.
I can also absolutely say that I've never had a showstopping problem with OpenRC in the nearly twenty-five years I've been using it. It's remarkable how reliable it is.
> and end up in some Github Issue where Systemd Project heavyweights go "Wow. Yeah, that looks bad. Maybe we should document it. Or fix it? IDK." and they'd do neither.
Do you have a reference? Not that I don't believe you, but I hated this behaviour from Poettering (although he seemed to more often blame the user) and we should totally raise up issue like this. It's a mature product that shouldn't have sharp edges any more.
I'm afraid I don't have a reference. The combination of the facts that the bugs are always damn obscure, there are so many Github Issues filed against systemd/systemd, $DAYJOB keeps me so busy with a huge variety of tasks, and the inappropriate lack of giveashit demonstrated by the project maintainers made me so angry means that the details just get blown out of my head.
> ...we should totally raise up issue like this. It's a mature product that shouldn't have sharp edges any more.
To whom would these issues be raised to? Based on my personal and professional experience, the SystemD maintainers (and -for those who are paid to work on the project- those who manage them) seem to disagree that "eliminating sharp edges" is a big priority!
Imagine that, people on the internet disagreeing. I've had both sysv and sysd crap in my cheerios. The thing I appreciated about sysv was that it stayed in its lane and didn't want to keep branching out into new parts of the system. Sysvinit never proposed something like homed.
My experience, and the common experience I’ve read, is the exact opposite. Run scripts worked. They always worked. They were simple. I’ve run into so many difficulties with systemd, on the other hand. I gave up managing my own server as a result.
I understand where you’re coming from but early systemd with both ubuntu and centos was a fucking mess. It’s good now but goddamn it was painful and the hate is 100% justified.
thanks for the clarification on how the kernel development works.
do you mind expanding on what is the benefit for companies like Microsoft, Google, IBM, Red Hat, Meta, Oracle, SUSE, Canonical, Amazon, Nvidia, AMD, Qualcom, Samsumg, Broadcom, Cisco, arm to spend an enormous amount of capital, both employing individuals to work full time on the kernel and making donations to cncf/linux foundation?
Certainly all of the big players behind linux have our best interest in mind and certainly NONE of this companies have some history of making decisions in detriment of consumer agency and freedom.
I would love to hear more about how linux is driven by passion and generosity if you don`t mind, please share!
I fail to see your point. Kernel development by the aforementioned big players benefits everyone and is all done in the open. Hence, "open source". In fact they use a public mailing list to submit patches.
All of the patches are auditable. If I don't want a patch, I can *trivially* omit it from my kernel before compiling.
How exactly are open source kernel modules and drivers affecting my freedom?
If you're not going to even bother to take the time to write an article, why should I waste my time reading it?
reply