Because if you disable browser autocomplete, what’s obviously going to happen is that everyone will have a text file open with every single one of their passwords in so that they can copy-paste them in. So prevent that. But what happens if you prevent that is that everyone will choose terrible, weak passwords instead. Something like September2025! probably meets the ‘complexity’ requirement…

A bit like when we renamed all the master/slave terminology using different phrasing that’s frankly more useful a lot of the time, I think it’s about time we got rid of this “child” task nonsense. I suggest “subtask”. Then we can reword these books into something that no-one can make stupid jokes about any more, like “how to keep your subs in line” and “how to punish your subs when they’ve misbehaved”.

Well now. When we’ve been enforcing password requirements at work, we’ve had to enforce a bizarre combination of “you must have a certain level of complexity”, but also, “you must be slightly vague about what the requirements actually are, because otherwise it lets an attacker tune a dictionary attack against you”. Which just strikes me as a way to piss off our users, but security team say it’s a requirement, therefore, it’s a requirement, no arguing.

“One” special character is crazy; I’d have guessed that was a catch-all for the other strange password requirements:

• can’t have the same character more than twice in a row
• can’t be one of the ten-thousand most popular passwords (which is mostly a big list of swears in russian)
• all whitespace must be condensed into a single character before checking against the other rules

We’ve had customers’ own security teams asking us if we can enforce “no right click” / “no autocomplete” to stop their users in-house doing such things; I’ve been trying to push back on that as a security misfeature, but you can’t question the cult thinking.

When I was still dual-booting Windows and Linux, I found that “raw disk” mode virtual machines worked wonders. I used VirtualBox, so you’d want a guide somewhat like this: https://superuser.com/questions/495025/use-physical-harddisk-in-virtual-box - other VM solutions are available, which don’t require you to accept an agreement with Oracle.

Essentially, rather than setting aside a file on disk as your VM’s disk, you can set aside a whole existing disk. That can be a disk that already has Windows installed on it, it doesn’t erase what you have. Then you can start Windows in a VM and let it do its updates - since it can’t see the bootloader from within the VM, it can’t fuck it up. You can run any software that doesn’t have particularly high graphics requirement, too.

I was also able to just “restart in Windows” if I wanted full performance for a game or something like that, but since Linux has gotten very good indeed at running games, that became less and less necessary until one day I just erased my Windows partition to recover the space.

As an example of a language that many people are familiar with, which is likely to be in long-term use where maintainability is most important, and which can almost read like pseudocode anyway, sure - probably the best ‘real language’ choice.

You can write an unmaintainable fucking mess in any language. Rust won’t save you from cryptic variable naming, copy-paste code, a complete absence of design patterns, dreadful algorithms, large classes of security issues, unfathomable UX, or a hundred other things. “Clean code” is (mostly) a separate issue from choice of language.

Don’t get me wrong - I don’t like this book. It manages to be both long-winded and facile at the same time. A lot of people seem to read it and take the exact wrong lessons about maintainability from it. I think that it would mostly benefit from being written in pseudocode - concentrating on any particular language might distract from the message. But having a few examples of what a shitfest looks like in a few specific languages might help

My old job had a lot of embedded programming - hard real-time Z80 programming, for processors like Z800s and eZ80s to control industrial devices. Actually quite pleasant languages to do bit-twiddling in, and it’s great to be able to step through the debugger and see that what the CPU is running is literally your source code, opcode by opcode.

Back when a computers were very simple things - I’m thinking a ZX Spectrum, where you can read directly from the input ports and write directly into the framebuffer, no OS in your way just code, then assembly made a lot of sense, was even fun. On modem computers, it is not so fun:

• x64 is just a fucking mess

• you cannot just read and write what you want, the kernel won’t let you. So you’re going to be spending a lot of your time calling system routines.

• 99% of your code will just be arranging data to suit the calling convention of your OS, and doing pointless busywork like stack pointer alignment. Writing some macros to do it for you makes your code look like C. Might as well just use C, in that case.

Writing assembly makes some sense sometimes - required for embedded, you might be writing something very security conscious where timing is essential, or you might be lining up some data for vectorisation where higher-level languages don’t have the constructs to get it right - but these are very small bits of code. You would be mad to consider “making the whole apple pie” in assembly.

PS3 most certainly had a separate GPU - was based on the GeForce 7800GTX. Console GPUs tend to be a little faster than their desktop equivalents, as they share the same memory. Rather than the CPU having to send eg. model updates across a bus to update what the GPU is going to draw in the next frame, it can change the values directly in the GPU memory. And of course, the CPU can read the GPU framebuffer and make tweaks to it - that’s incredibly slow on desktop PCs, but console games can do things like tone mapping whenever they like, and it’s been a big problem for the RPCS3 developers to make that kind of thing run quickly.

The cell cores are a bit more like the ‘tensor’ cores that you’d get on an AI CPU than a full-blown CPU core. They can’t speak to the RAM directly, just exchange data between themselves - the CPU needs to copy data in and out of them in order to get things in and out, and also to schedule any jobs that must run on them, they can’t do it themselves. They’re also a lot more limited in what they can do than a main CPU core, but they are very very fast at what they can do.

If you are doing the kind of calculations where you’ve a small amount of data that needs a lot of repetitive maths done on it, they’re ideal. Bitcoin mining or crypto breaking for instance - set them up, let them go, check in on them occasionally. The main CPU acts as an orchestrator, keeping all the cell cores filled up with work to do and processing the end results. But if that’s not what you’re trying to do, then they’re borderline useless, and that’s a problem for the PS3, because most of its processing power is tied up in those cores.

Some games have a somewhat predictable workload where offloading makes sense. Got some particle effects - some smoke where you need to do some complicated fluid-and-gravity simulations before copying the end result to the GPU? Maybe your main villain has a very dramatic cape that they like to twirl, and you need to run the simulation on that separately from everything else that you’re doing? Problem is, working out what you can and can’t offload is a massive pain in the ass; it requires a lot of developer time to optimise, when really you’d want the design team implementing that kind of thing; and slightly newer GPUs are a lot more programmable and can do the simpler versions of that kind of calculation both faster and much more in parallel.

The Cell processor turned out to be an evolutionary dead end. The resources needed to work on it (expensive developer time) just didn’t really make sense for a gaming machine. The things that it was better at, are things that it just wasn’t quite good enough at - modern GPUs are Bitcoin monsters, far exceeding what the cell can do, and if you’re really serious about crypto breaking then you probably have your own ASICs. Lots of identical, fast CPU cores are what developers want to work on - it’s much easier to reason about.

Yes, because it doesn’t do as much to protect you from data corruption.

If you have a use case where a barely-measurable increase in speed is essential, but not so essential that you wouldn’t just pay for more RAM to keep it in cache, and also it doesn’t matter if you get the wrong answer because you’ve not noticed the disk is failing, and you can afford to lose everything in the case of a power cut, then sure, use a legacy filesystem. Otherwise, use a modern one.

Got this installed on all my work machines - if you’re wanting to stick a screenshot on Jira or Slack with a couple of arrows, wavy lines, or a bit blurred out then it’s dead quick and has just the functionality that you need. Yes, it’s simple and lacks a lot of ‘power tools’. Sometimes that’s just what you need, tho.

emerges from a brand you’ve probably never heard of

Writing this on a Tuxedo Pulse 14 / gen 3 as we speak. Great little laptop. I’d wanted something with a few more pixels than my previous machine, and there’s a massive jump from bog-standard 1080p to extremely expensive 4K screens. Three megapixel screen at a premium-but-not-insane price, compiles code like a champion, makes an extremely competent job of 3D gaming, came with Linux and runs it all perfectly.

“Tuxedo Linux”, which is their in-house distro, is Ubuntu + KDE Plasma. Seemed absolutely fine, although I replaced it with Arch btw since that’s more my style. Presumably they’re using Debian for the ARM support on this new one? This one runs pretty cold most of the time, but you definitely know that you’ve got a 54W processor in a very thin mobile device when you try eg. playing simulation games - it gets a bit warm on the knees. “Not x64” would be a deal-breaker for my work, but for most uses the added battery life would be more valuable than the inconvenience.

btw

Finest advice possible for any Linux sysadmin.

One of the things that got me to change my gaming desktop from Mint to Arch was the fact that you get the cutting-edge version of everything; kernel and amdgpu being the most important, but also getting the latest version of Lutris and things is nice too. Brought me from “usually about 50 fps outdoors in Elden Ring” to “usually about 60 fps” on the same machine.

Makes sense for a gaming machine to only include the services you actually want, which Arch enables. Supports my hardware better too - my audio gear works perfectly in Pipewire but is ropey in ALSA, so rather than “install Mint -> install Pipewire -> remove ALSA -> hope ALSA is gone”, the sequence is “install Arch -> install Pipewire”, which make more sense.

Other cutting-edge rolling release distros are available, of course, but once you learn Arch, it makes a lot of sense for gaming.

Yeah.

There’s a couple of ways of looking at it; general purpose computers generally implement ‘soft’ real time functionality. It’s usually a requirement for music and video production; if you want to keep to a steady 60fps, then you need to update the screen and the audio buffer absolutely every 16 ms. To achieve that, the AV thread runs at a higher priority than any other thread. The real-time scheduler doesn’t let a lower-priority thread run until every higher-priority thread is finished. Normally that means worse performance overall, and in some cases can softlock the system - if the AV thread gets stuck in a loop, your computer won’t even respond to keyboard input.

Soft real-time is appropriate for when no-one will die if a timeslot is missed. A video stutter won’t kill you. Hard real-time is for things like industrial control. If the anti-lock breaks in your car are meant to evaluate your wheels one hundred times a second, then taking 11 ms to evaluate that is a complete system failure, even if the answer is correct. Note that it doesn’t matter if it gets the right answer in 1 ms or 9 ms, as long as it never ever takes more than 10. Hard real-time performance does not mean good performance, it means predictable performance.

When we program up PLCs in industrial settings, for our ‘critical sections’, we’ll processor interrupts, so that we know our code will absolutely run in time. We use specialised languages as well - no loops, no recursion - that don’t let you do things that can’t be checked for an upper time bound. Lots of finite state machines! But when we’re done, we know that we’ve got code that won’t miss a time slot in the next twenty years of operation.

That does mean, ironically, that my old Amiga was a better music computer than my current desktop, despite being millions of times less powerful. OctaMED could take over the whole CPU whenever it liked. Whereas a modern desktop might always have to respond to a USB device or a hard drive, leading to a potential stutter at any time. Tiny probability, but not an acceptable one.

Think you’re understating it there. Network call takes milliseconds at best. Function call, if the CPU has correctly predicted the indirect branch, is basically free, but even if it hasn’t then you’re talking nanoseconds. It’s slower by millions of times.

That’s because Arch is the best, so any additional comparisons are just wasting everyone’s time ;-)

Ah, that sounds a bit unfortunate. I’ve run AMD CPUs on Linux desktops with Bulldozer / Piledriver / Ryzen 7, my current laptop is a Ryzen 7 as well, never run into that at all. Hopefully the Arch wiki will sort you out. If not that, the third option would be ‘install Linux on an M-series Mac’ - don’t know how feasible it is at the moment, and paying the ‘Mac premium for hardware and software integration and then overwriting the software’ doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

Can confirm that this does work perfectly for Lutris, for upgrades at least. I’ve got my home directory on an NVMe drive and my games installed on a slower disk; as long as you don’t move or rename any of the partitions, it just keeps rocking along.

My laptop and desktop have a different list of games installed, but because Lutris uses SQLite as its backing store, it’s not terribly easy to keep ‘some parts’ synchronised and others not. I’ve spent a bit of time getting all of the icons, banners, release dates, etc all correct and looking pretty, and it’s a shame that it’s tough to reuse. (Lutris does this automatically for Wine installs if you get the name ‘just right’ to start with, but not for all your other emulated stuff - all the DOS games and things.)

Not all of the light would have been wasted on the wall. If your wall is painted green, then the ‘rest of the rainbow’ (red, orange, yellow, blue, violet wavelengths) would be absorbed and converted into heat. Paint is quite rough on a microscopic level, and the green light reflected would be scattered in every direction.

Things that have a colour do so because they reflect those frequencies. Mirrors reflect pretty much all frequencies of visible light with very little scattering - that’s the definition of the word, really.

If you had a black feature wall behind your lamp, such that very little was reflected off it into the rest of the room, then with a mirror there would be about twice the photons illuminating the room. If your wall was pure brilliant white, much less of a difference. Your eyes don’t perceive ‘twice the photons’ as ‘twice as bright’ - they scale from absorbing thousands a second when fully dark-adjusted at night, to trillions per second at midday - but you might find it a bit easier to eg. read a book elsewhere in the room.

Light output from the lamp doesn’t change, but depending on the colours of things in your room, the light output that is useful for seeing might do.