I wonder if having a /dev/ntsync device could make it easier for game devs to compile their games for linux in the first place, instead of having to use wine. There may be other windows specific dependencies though, but this is one less right?
I’ve had trouble installing proxmox with ventoy, I had to install debian and then proxmox as a package. AFAIK there isn’t really an alternative to ventoy?
> By removing a bunch of conditionals for UDP-Lite from the fast path, udp_rr with 20,000 flows sees a 10% increase in pps (13.3 Mpps -> 14.7 Mpps) on an AMD EPYC 7B12 (Zen 2) 64-Core Processor platform.
Considering the number linux udp sockets in the wild this is huge. It’s a shame C/compilers can’t optimize this away though without entirely removing the code, this is exactly why zig’s comptime exists.
> Secondly, it should perhaps be a concern for Zig, now at 10 years old, to still produce solidly breaking code every half year.
Not at all, if the team needs 30 more years they should take it.
> However, the outlook for a Zig 1.0 is bleak from what I gather from Zig social forums: the most optimistic estimate I’ve heard is 2029 for 1.0.
Funny you see it as bleak when most of the community sees it as the most excitinh thing in systems programming happening right now.
I think you comment is in bad faith, all the big zig projects say that the upgrade path is never a main concern, just read HN comments here or on other zig threads, people ask about this a lot and maintains always answer.
> Not at all, if the team needs 30 more years they should take it.
Yes, I understand that is the opinion in the Zig community. As an outsider, it seems odd to me to pick a language that I constantly need to maintain.
>> However, the outlook for a Zig 1.0 is bleak from what I gather from Zig social forums: the most optimistic estimate I’ve heard is 2029 for 1.0.
> Funny you see it as bleak when most of the community sees it as the most excitinh thing in systems programming happening right now.
You misread that one. I was talking about the odds of seeing a 1.0 version of Zig soon.
> I think you comment is in bad faith, all the big zig projects say that the upgrade path is never a main concern, just read HN comments here or on other zig threads, people ask about this a lot and maintains always answer.
Maybe you didn't read what I wrote carefully enough. This is part of the protectiveness from the Zig community that prompted me to write in the first place.
WITHIN the Zig community it is deemed acceptable for Zig upgrades to break code. Consequently it becomes simple survivor bias that people who use Zig for larger projects don't think that this is a major concern BECAUSE IF THEY FELT IT WAS A CONCERN THEY WOULD NOT USE ZIG.
Whether programmers at large feel that this is a problem is an unknown still, since Zig has not yet reached to point of general adoption (when people use Zig because they have to, rather than because they want to).
However, it is INCORRECT to state that just because a language is not yet 1.0 it needs to break older code aggressively without deprecation paths. As an example, Odin removed the old `os` module and replaced it with the new "os2". This break was announced half a year in advance and lots of thought was put into reducing work for developers: https://odin-lang.org/news/moving-towards-a-new-core-os/
In the case of C3, breaking changes only happen once a year with stdlib going through the general process of deprecating functions long before removing them.
I wanted to highlight how these are quite different approaches. For established languages, this is of course even more rigorous, but neither C3 nor Odin are 1.0, and still see this as valuable and their communities then end up expecting it.
So please understand that when you say "it's never a main[sic] concern", this is simple survivor bias.
> In the case of C3, breaking changes only happen once a year with stdlib going through the general process of deprecating functions long before removing them.
zig release happens once a year, either a breaking change. I don't really get how you tried defended yourself, do you think it's any "different"?
> Given Apple's historically very premium pricing, launching such an affordable product is certainly a shock to the entire market
No? Apple has been delivering way cheaper laptops ever since M1, this one is just even cheaper. I thought PC execs were asleep at the wheel but not this bad.
Apple sold the the base model M1 Macbook Air through Walmart for $600 between when they stopped selling it directly up to early this year. It looks like this computer is about as performant as that one, so I guess they started to have trouble sourcing components and came up with the Neo as their replacement.
I know that Walmart and Costco sold discounted M1 MacBook Airs, which why I used introductory prices.
> so I guess they started to have trouble sourcing components and came up with the Neo as their replacement.
There’s no indication Apple had any issues with getting components; they’re have problems with sourcing more expensive components.
Apple tends to be very deliberate with products; this isn’t a replacement for something else.
In fact, there was an article stating unlike some other laptop manufacturers, Apple’s prices aren’t expected to rise because their buying power and having contracts in place [1].
A low-cost MacBook using an iPhone process has been rumored for at least a year.
>Apple sold the the base model M1 Macbook Air through Walmart for $600 between when they stopped selling it directly up to early this year.
I took advantage of this after the fact. I bought a pristine open box M1 from VIPoutlet (Walmart's closeout brand, as I understand it) on Walmart last month for ~$350 as a backup computer.[1] The Neo reinforced the wisdom of my purchase, as M1 has slightly better specs for less money.
[1] If the M4 Pro MacBook I am typing this on needs repair, I will use the M1 with a bootable clone of the M4's drive made with SuperDuper!.
I’m sure Apple has wanted to create a low-cost Mac laptop (the base Mac mini was already $499) for a long time, regardless of what previous models have done.
They waited until they could do it in alignment with Apple’s brand, going back to Steve Jobs saying during the netbook hysteria: “We don’t know how to build a sub-$500 computer that is not a piece of junk. [1]”
And to their credit the Mac Neo is not a piece of junk.
This product effectively cuts the entry price for a new model Mac laptop in half. The cheapest current-generation MacBook has been $999 or above for a very long time, even back to the iBook days.
Yes, Apple has offered discounted prices by continuing to sell older models or offer straight discount sales via third party retailers. But I expect that will continue here too. This is $599 MSRP at Apple but will probably be $499 via the usual retailers by the end of 2026.
That's a bit different than continuing to sell a 5-year-old model at a discount.
reply