I believe the EU redirected open source funding to LLM/“AI”. Germany’s Sovereign Tech Fund on the other hand had its budget increased.

You always have to consider the sources of such whispers, otherwise it means very little. The devs, who are few and works on evenings because they have day jobs, a well-know open source issue for many projects, were clear about when they started in earnest on getting 3.0 done, less than 3 years ago. Until then they’ve spent most of their time adding features to 2.10 and the 2.9 branch was more of a long lived testing ground with occational test releases that cause talk sometimes. The aim was RC primo or medio this year, they’re only slightly late.

But I get the feeling more devs are starting to contribute now it’s near 3.0, maybe because the new architecture actually makes it easier. So there’s hope a lot will start to happen. There’s even a UI working group.

I’m running the 2.9 nightly, it’s better in a multitude of little ways as well as having a number of new features.

Same, I’ve done C and C++ for several decades and I’ve spent too much time of that hunting obscure memory issus triggered by rare race conditions. No matter how hard we try to use safe patterns we are all too human. The most experienced C++ devs I know are the first to admit this.

In Rust once it compiles much less time is spent debugging and a whole big category of bugs are gone from the production code.

And C++ aient pretty but maybe that’s subjective.

And one less thing to waste time on for experienced users.

This is a good thing, it is much needed for Snap and Flatpak and will make sandboxed applications less confusing for those who don’t grog flatseal/kde-settings/etc. and adds convenience for everyone.

Greybeard here. I can use vi, emacs, nano, etc. and use whatever is available if it suits the job. For many years I did dev in emacs on my computers and on other systems used vi for quick edits. Currently on my own laptop I have micro as default term editor now. For Rust development - code, though I have hopes for Lapce.

They’re all just tools and so are people who get tribal about things.

Well, yes use-case is key. But interestingly ext4 will never detect bitrot/errors/corruption. BTRFS will detect corrupted files because its targeted users wants to know. It makes it difficult to say what’s the more reliable FS because first we’d have to define “reliable” and the perception of it and who/what do we blame when the FS tells us there’s a corrupted file detected?. Do we shoot the messenger?

For a few years I used a distro that had btrfs as default, including scheduled automatic maintenance. Never had to bother about manual balancing or fiddeling with the FS.