Laurel Raven

Mostly, my general advice boils down to three things: fully automate everything you can as you go, don’t tear down factories without a specific goal in mind, and break big production lines down into smaller pieces

• fully automate: it can be tempting to stand up box fed mini factories to solve a short term goal, but it’s almost always better long term to automate it, even if you just do it sloppy and inefficiently. At least it’s there and can churn away quietly and be ready to plug into something bigger later
• don’t tear down: if you aren’t rebuilding a factory to handle more throughput, there’s probably not a good reason to remove it yet. It can keep idly producing as long as there’s power and somewhere for the product to go. You might find yourself needing something you’re already making that’s gone idle and it’s usually easier to redirect an output that build a whole new factory. Critically, DO NOT DISASSEMBLE PROJECT ASSEMBLY, pretty much all of it gets used again and again and having the factories continue running means you’ll have a leg up on the next part in the chain. When I got to the last part, ballistic wrap drive, I realized my factory making turbo propulsion rockets had slowed a lot due to some upstream issues with nitrogen gas hauling, but it didn’t matter because I’d already made enough to finish by then anyway
• break it down: don’t focus on the big picture, it’s overwhelming. Solve the production line one step at a time and the end of the production line will just be plugging in the inputs, more or less

Bonus tip: look up Satisfactory Tools if you haven’t already, the production calculator on it is fantastic and once you get the hang of all it can to it’ll make production planning way easier. With bigger builds, I’ll look at the parts and add them in as direct inputs if I am already making enough of it and it makes the diagram way simpler. I’ll even split off parts into their own production plan to eliminate the rest so I’m just focusing on that bit. Before you know it… It’s done.

Debian doesn’t have sudo by default, you have to install it manually

Not sure what they mean by “non Ubuntu variants” though since most other distros add it even when they aren’t Ubuntu based

“You’re absolutely right, we wouldn’t want to take too long to break the network or open god rights vulnerabilities”

So, basically, just like Windows? Sounds like they’re succeeding then

I love that mentality to development

If it has a buffer overflow exploit that caused it to execute arbitrary code is his response that people shouldn’t be sending that much data into that port anyway so we’re not going to fix it?

(I feel like this shouldn’t require a /s but I’m throwing it in anyway)

Fedora with Flatpaks is open and up front about whether you’re getting a Flatpak or a system installed package, and lets you choose if both are available. And installing through dnf/yum isn’t going to do anything at all with Flatpak.

And what about Debian with debs? That’s literally what apt was designed to work with. If it gave you Flatpaks, or the flatpak command installed debs, that would be more like what Ubuntu is doing.

The fact that Canonical shoehorned snaps into apt is the problem. I’ve heard bad things about snap, but I wouldn’t know because I’ve never used it, and I never will because of this.

When I tell my computer to do one thing and it does something completely different without my consent, that is a problem, and is why I left Windows. I don’t need that in Linux too, and Canonical has proven they can’t be trusted not to do that.

In many respects, I think the scare manipulation they’re pulling when someone updates their system up try to get them to buy their subscription service is worse, implying that they won’t be getting all of the security patches they need otherwise

If you have Ubuntu installed in the room, then yes

Last time I loaded up Ubuntu, considering it for a server, the moment I saw that, I deleted the VM and took it off my list permanently

I have no interest in that kind of manipulative BS

You’d think with all those penguins…

That’s a great feature, actually, it saves you from using Windows

Perhaps because Steam is the launcher we actually choose to use? That does make a big difference…

Yes, the launcher I use for almost all my games which gives me a single interface to install, update, and run them. It has purpose. It’s the launcher I’m actually intending to use.

Eats Ass games (as one example) loading up their own launcher in the middle of that and providing no actual benefit other than wasting my time and resources is NOT something I choose to use.

Whichever one is primary or third party, I don’t really care about the semantics of it, but the extra launcher that isn’t needed or wanted is what I think of when someone’s talking about third party launchers.

I dunno, I tend to think of the useless thing that comes up for a game I bought on Steam and run through Steam to be “third party”… Maybe that’s a stretch, but whatever, it’s just unwanted and unnecessary at that point

Microsoft switching their Azure stack Linux build to their own Azure Linux distro, to me, is less surprising than them not already using it… When they first announced CBL Mariner (the predecessor of Azure Linux), I thought that’s what they were already running.

Or, more likely, didn’t need to pay for support as they have adequate technical coverage of their needs… Why would you pay for things you aren’t going to be using?

If I’m putting BSD or MIT license on something, I’m explicitly saying you can use it however you want, you can change it however you want, you don’t have to share back, I just ask for credit for my part in it

It’s not taking so much as being given freely