That's intentional. That's where this began. GNOME started out by implementing CORBA in a library called ORBit. It was eventually replaced by D-Bus which got more widespread usage across desktop environments and components. Eventually that was adopted at the OS level because of systemd and now they're replacing that with this. So, literally yes.
Large folio support is a capability required for a Linux filesystem to fully support large block sizes--block sizes larger than the usual page size, which for ext4 on x86 is 4KB. So now ext4 can support block sizes of, e.g., 64KB--a common maximum block size supported by NVME drives--without having to issue more than a single read/write operation.
Background: recently the Linux memory management architecture completed the transition to so-called "folios", which provide a way to (mostly) atomically manage blocks of memory larger than the normal page size. It's like large pages, but more of a software abstraction than an interface over large page support in hardware. But to leverage the full potential of folios, various components, like the ext4 filesystem implementation, need to be further refactored beyond what was required for the initial transition to the folio API. See https://lwn.net/Articles/1015320/ for a recent overview of folios.
It's the reason why some companies, like IBM [disclosure: I work for Red Hat], seem to sell products even though there seems to be little rational reason why customers would buy them, as in they have poorer performance or quality at a much greater price. Those products are certified against dozens of financial, safety, security or other standards, and customers in certain markets (government, military, nuclear, automotive etc) simply have to buy the certified products. The consequences of not doing so range from products not being supported, all the way to going to jail for gross negligence.
Another example of this is FIPS-140 crypto. It is objectively bad crypto in the 2020's. But it's mandated in some settings for either bureaucratic reasons or due to regulatory capture.
It’s not really a rule, but rather in some environments you have to be able to say in court that you did everything you could to make sure your software worked safely and correctly. Sometimes you will be risking criminal charges if you can’t.
The truth is, too many managers have never read the ISO document, and follow the CYA methodology, and ask for everything to be certified. The ISO just says (bare with me with this stupid simplification) “do whatever you want, but make sure p(disaster)<1e-20.
You have to be able to justify decisions, but will not helt having certified frameworks, os, and tools, if you did a bad FMEDA
Following this logic it seems to be a good choice to buy RHEL because you have no chance running linux with those probability margins that you just wrote. Electronic components might have those. So stay out of jail
There is NO market where “ASIL” is required.
Of course if something happens you better have a safety case as described in the ISO26262, or a good excuse.
That being said, that a system has a safety case according to ISO26262 ASIL D, does bot mean at all that all pieces must be certified.
Currently working in a project where ASIL D is reached by having an independent microcontroller, whatching out the whole QM mess.
Define “required”. If every single legal department at every single major automotive company says “we must obtain ASIL-B certification for our gauge cluster software or we can’t sell cars”, does it matter if regulators don’t overtly mandate it? The legal environments of all of the major automotive markets make it a de facto requirement.
The ISO26262 was defined by the automakers themselves (almost all were represented in the committee) so yes, they want to follow it. There is no legal requirement. It does not specially help in case of litigation either.
It's not legally mandated, but the dynamics of the regulation and the risk-averse nature of companies mean that it's effectively become a requirement to compete: if you don't have it, you're only going to sell to the rare company that is willing to stick their neck out and deal with novel arguments in the paperwork themselves. For commercial aerospace that is none of the manufacturers.
(someone else might come along and certify it themselves, effectively acting as a middleman, but then they're going to get most of the money)
Er, git-svn is bi-directional? Targeted at allowing a developer to have a local git workflow that syncs up nicely with a central svn server? Is that the svn-git you're after?
No, the exact reverse: Hide away the brain-damaging GIT database system behind a proxy, so that I can (again!) concentrate on my job as developer.
Instead I have to spend at least one day every week as "version managment administrator" just to keep GIT from falling apart because of weird internal errors.
I will never understand why a plain user must deal with internal data structures (like db-indieces) of some tool on a day to day basis.
Many people, Especially sice C++ has become a playfield for CS language theorists, who invent more and more overcomplicated language "features" with little to no practical use.
Getting features into WG21 still requires some effort to get them through, regardless of what people in the outside think, and yeah I do agree it could get some more direction.
C++ may seem to get everything dumpped into it, however any language nerd that feels like diving into what the history of languages with similar age (Python, Perl, Ada, C#, Java, F#, OCaml,...) have across all their versions, standard library, main interpreter/compilers, .... will find out those aren't much better either.
Meh, product managers (when competent) are very useful and very much necessary in projects of such scale. That not some scrappy 10 people start-up operating in the web space.
Every few sentences there there is a remark like "This circuit might have edge cases,... "...perfect for the majority of use cases,..".
In other words: It will, at best, work on the developers table, but nowhere else.
Why is somebody publishing examples that won't work in the real world ?
hackaday is not about making consumer products. It's for hackers and hobbyist. The real world is vague, but should include people trying different implementations.
USB is a mess. Lots of devices that claim support are actually way out of spec. As a result it is hard to say exactly what will happen when people start plugging stuff in.
This is especially true for USB hubs of any kind, so much so that I think even Caldigit sold a hub that wasn't fully compliant to it's advertised capabilities.
The fundamental difference is the C preprocessor is actually a language independent of C. They follow their own grammars, syntax, semantics, symbol tables, etc., and do not communicate with each other.
