The nice part about the Intel board is all 4 ports support usb4/thunderbolt 4 so all 4 ports are completely interchangeable whereas on the AMD board I need to remember to plug my dock into the back ports closer to the hinge.
Because realistically in the laptop computer space Apple is obliterating everything else right now.
You can usually name a laptop that has some feature better than a macbook, but the overall package is so strong in so many avenues. Sound quality, screen quality (even without leaning on fancy new tech like OLED), trackpad quality.
Would you rather they target the Dell Latitude (Coil Whine, crazy power-off issues caused by C-States, poor thermals) or Thinkpad T-series (USB-C port stops charging and requires motherboard replacement, thermal issues, weak speakers, also coil whine, unstable radio) or HP’s elitebook (randomly doesn’t wake from suspend, hinge cracking and keycaps falling off even with light wear).
The other SKU’s are a race to the bottom, despite being more expensive for the base-system (which I find ironic).
It’s a poor north star to take a degrading product line as inspiration.
If I'm looking at the framework or the Thinkpad or anything else I've said "no thanks" to Apple laptops
This is my starting point. I've already turned the Mac down.
It's like turning down a very specific slice of cake and then being offered the same kind of cake from different vendors when really you just want a salad
If for hardware (because its not serviceable): then thats what the framework is fixing.
It is no secret that Apple hardware is superior right now. If you don’t like that as a fact then convince Dell/HP/Lenovo to do better. It is a valid north star for Framework in the current ecosystem to differentiate but chase the best in market.
—
Also, your comments are devoid of things that you actually feel like you’re missing. I think you’re just being snide because you've taken a position as “anything related to Apple is bad” which undermines a lot of genuine engineering they do.
It's not that, it's the follower product insistence. I've got a strong universal distaste for it.
Let's take an industry where there isn't any: showers. You go to a hotel or an Airbnb and you can't figure out how to turn on the shower. They're all so different
This is actually great. People are being very innovative and creative. That's human flourishing and ingenuity.
You go to the electronics store and all the laptops look the same with different logos on the back.
It's suffocating
I'm looking for creative diversity. It's a different set of values
The laptops I mentioned are also very different from Macbooks, but they are increasingly poor quality.
I maintain that its a valid choice, maybe once they have a truly solid product they can be creative. But theres no point being “super creative” and having no product, especially not a product people dislike.
Creative diversity doesn't pay bills. If you're going to sell one or two laptop designs, it damn well better be what the majority of people expect from a laptop.
While you're certainly within your right to buy different types of hardware, I don't think you're right to criticize convergent design. There already are wildly different laptop alternatives like the iPad, which is mainly held back by it's refusal to accept basic laptop features that Mac and PC users take for granted.
Most people who have the option of buying a Mac and still go with Windows/Linux machines do so because of the software. The hardware is almost universally agreed to be great, and a stronger overall package than most non-Mac options.
So making Mac-like hardware with Windows/Linux software is very much a great value proposition to many people.
> The hardware is almost universally agreed to be great
There is some agreement in terms of the M chips. There is no universl agreement re keyboard layout, screen technology and surfacing, trackpoints, touchscreens, 2-in-1 form factors, port selection, or aluminium unibodies.
>Because realistically in the laptop computer space Apple is obliterating everything else right now.
Probably right, seeing how bad the laptop world is nowadays. Even with its shitty chiclet keyboard and button-less trackpad, the M2 Pro I have to use at work trounces the XPSes my Windows colleagues have.
Still far from the Latitude e64x0 and old 6x series Thinkpads I had but well, they only win on the haptics and repairability level. Thankfully I kept an e6440 that still works "okay" with its Haswell i5 and 1080p IPS screen; the thermals and crappy Intel iGPU are the only thing I really lament.
Air gapped means... there is nothing except air in the gap between systems.
A physical tether would defeat it.
Now, I pedant could start talking about wifi, but air-gapping is a concept older than the internet. (It stems from plumbing where there's air that prevents back leakage of contamination).
Something can probably be learned from Sweden, where nearly all information is public by default.
Here's my home address btw, super easy to find if you know my name.
DoB is on there too, who I live with, which door in the building, if I have a car, a dog or contract phone.. You can even pay a small fee and get an extract of the income register to see how much I earn.
Why are you talking about compile times in a thread about supply chain security.
326 packages is approximately 326 more packages than I will ever fully audit to a point where my employer would be comfortable with me making that decision (I do it because many eyes make bugs shallow).
It's also approximately 300 more than the community will audit, because it will only be "the big ones" that get audited, like serde and tokio.
I don't see people rushing to audit `zmij` (v1.0.19), despite it having just as much potential to backdoor my systems as tokio does.
Preferences don't form in a vacuum though. There's a perception that GNOME is the "good environment" which means its decisions get treated as more important than other DEs' when things change: and that's somewhat self-reinforcing.
Distro: "The most used DE needs first class support, we should probably bend to it" → Distro: "We should probably make this DE the default since it's so widely used and supported" → User: "I choose the default" → Distro: "The most used DE…"
So yes, people have different preferences; but if your preference is GNOME today, it might not be GNOME tomorrow, and "I picked the default" isn't quite the neutral signal it looks like.
where exactly did I say anything contrary to what you said.
Are you implying that GNOME is the only thing that should be considered graphical? That everything else has to be an alternative? That GNOME, by virtue of existing has infinite reprieve to change the definition of user interfaces at their leisure; even if it means breaking muscle memory hundreds of thousands of times over decades.
A service's availability is capped by its critical dependencies; this is textbook SRE stuff (see Treynor et al., The Calculus of Service Availability). Copilot may well be on the side of it (and has the worst uptime, dragging everything down), but if Actions depends on Packages then Actions can be "up" while in reality the service is not functional. If your release pipeline depends on Webhooks, then you're unable to release.
The obvious one is git operations: if you don't have git ops then basically everything is down.
So; you're right about Copilot, but the subset you proposed (Git+Webhooks+API+Issues+PRs) has the exact same intersection problem. If git is at one nine, that entire subset is capped at one nine too, no matter how green the rest of it looks.
And to be clear: git operations is sitting at 98.98% on the reconstructed dashboard linked above[1]. That is one nine. Github stopped publishing aggregate numbers on their own status page, which.. tells you something.
Well yes you could do that on a status page, but it's basically just lying to put Actions as green if it's actually down because it depends on Packages which is red.
With that set, I wasn't proposing a set of totally independent services to be grouped together, I was talking about a set of things that I think represent pretty core services for Github users. If Git is dragging the rest of those down, fine; PRs are useless without it. In fact it is worse than some but it's not the worst of that group, and it is still a lot better then the dregs of Actions and Copilot.
Having said that, the numbers are of course terrible, two nines on a couple of things and one on everything else would be bad for a startup, it's an utter embarrassment for a company that's been doing this over a decade.
The challenge is convincing people that "golden images" and containers share a history, and that kubernetes didn't invent containers: they just solved load balancing and storage abstraction for stateless message architectures in a nice way.
If you're doing something highly stateful, or that requires a heavy deployment (game servers are typically 10's of GB and have rich dynamic configuration in my experience) then kubernetes starts to become round-peg-square-hole. But people buy into it because the surrounding tooling is just so nice; and like GP says: those cloud sales guys are really good at their jobs, and kubernetes is so difficult to run reliably yourself that it gets you hooked on cloud.
There's a literal army of highly charismatic, charming people who are economically incentivised to push this technology and it can be made to work so- the odds, as they say, are against you.
Benchmarks have to wait until the actual Intel chip is out.
reply