panta82
It's solving a problem no one has.
Standard library improvements are always welcome, though.
Containers and software installs etc. already have solutions that are much simpler to use. Don't require me to learn a new language or get into the weeds of how each package works.
But it seems it isn't able to blindly mirror stuff from pip, for example? Or to just package any linux under the sun, like Docker can? You'd have to have a nix-specific version of every package you want to use.
And then, the first time you hit upon a package it doesn't have, you have to develop and maintain your own version of it (as far as I understand?). This sounds like a lot of work for someone who wants packages to just work, so they can focus on other things.
I remember using freebsd at some point. The annoyance of not being able to just grab a deb from random sites and install them far outweighted any benefits I got from a cleaner OS organization and some extra features. Nix feels the same way.
I am not saying nix is a bad idea or that it'd have no benefit. Just that, for non-enthusiasts and non-early adopters like myself, it's dead in the water until there is some major support behind it.
Non-reproducable environments are just not such a big issue that it's worth "radical rethinking" of everything to solve.
I know new engine is supposed to speed up rendering, but on my linux boxes, everything feels slightly slower than before.
Not a big deal for an IDE or IDE light, but for what I use sublime for (quick text editing), it's a disappointing change.
If you have a dynamic set of databases or even tables, be ready to invest into tooling to recreate features you take for granted in a normal database.
I had to do an admissions test, plus average grade from primary school (50-50 scoring ratio, if I remember correctly).
They score everyone, and put them on a list. The top gets in. The rest, good luck, try somewhere else.
So it's not random.
Nevertheless, I don't feel iffy about my Interests profile participating in aggregate data available to the sites I visit. Since virtually all sites are free of charge, giving some of that insight back seems like a fair trade.
That said, having ALL that data available to Google without anonymization is a bit more worrying, although I haven't seen many examples where it hurt someone in real world.
On the other hand, I love that I can easily cast screen from my laptop or photos from phone using built in chromecast.
Smart TVs are a mixed bag.
While I am not as concerned about big tech's data siloing as some, I can see why it's worrying.
Unfortunately, not only is GA the best totally free analytics solution that any marketeer will know how to use, many ad blockers nuke ALL analytics scripts, even if they have nothing to do with google.
Also, feels like a bit of an arbitrary boundary.
I think people in general have gotten so sick of ad powered big tech they are having a bit of an over-reaction against analytics in general, not just google's product.
You don't have a problem with them knowing that.
All together, that's more data than a Google Analytics user knows about any of their visitors.
With hooks, you need to do all these optimizations and best practices explicitly, which bloats up the code and defeats the purpose of getting rid of class structure boilerplate in the first place.
Also applies to net neutrality and health-care btw.
Why shouldn't site owner know you've visited their site? How will they do their job if they don't know where people come from, what content they enjoy, what devices they should optimized for, general demographic of their audience, etc.
These are all the things a restourant owner would know about their customers, for example. But no one seems to have a problem with that.