No, Apple's EVP has no risk of being put in jail by contesting the court order.

Yes, they did. It's not open for debate, in view of the judge's order:
"The order, filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, demands that an Apple official 'personally responsible for ensuring compliance' appear in court on May 27 'if the parties do not file a joint notice that this issue is resolvedâ¦'"

Personally requiring an executive to appear is a big ol' red flag there, buddy.

I think I agree that this is being done in good faith (to the court) pending appeal.

Good faith? It's being done in fear of some Apple EVP being tossed in holding and million dollar fines for contempt being imposed until Apple stopped stalling (16 months after losing its appeal of the injunction to the Supreme Court, and 20 days after the Court imposed sanctions, further restrictions, and made clear that its patience was at an end).

There was no good faith. There is fear of the hammer dropping even harder.

The right doesn't much care about the million birds killed by windmills every year.

No, they just hate wind turbine generators in general.

But they are aware of the environment damage caused by mining the materials to build it, and to dispose of worn out panels, which isn't admitted to by the left.

Coal ash and nuclear waste. Next.

Like the ones that have started more deadly wildfires in California than all other causes combined?

Nope. Those are medium voltage distribution lines. Those 150k kV+ high tension lines on gigantic steel towers are transmission lines.

The only wind power generators farmers love are the small scale ones that maybe power a pump to water their cattle. The big, industrial ones installed by a power company look great until the contract runs out, and they find that the company that paid them for the land to put it on put the responsibility (and expense, which can run more than the farmer was paid in the first place) to tear it down, remove it, and restore the land for farming, after it gets abandoned at the end of its life.

Interesting fictional story, bro. You're wrong, but that's never stopped you.

Try talking to some actual farmers, and you'll find they're not as supportive as you want them to be. Which is why you don't talk to them.

So we're living in opposite world now. Where's your "talking to some actual farmers" evidence, bro?

Not without the subsidies, which are expected to be nearly half a trillion dollars in the next ten years.

Yes, without subsidies.

Nuclear is the only possible future to maintain a civilized standard of living. Most of the left have admitted that in recent years.

Back to opposite world again. Completely false, and no, "most of the left" have not fulfilled this weird fantasy of yours.

Better a hypocrite than a drooling idiot gobbling down whatever propaganda his betters spoon feed him.

But you're literally both. All propaganda, no data.

One might more rightly ascribe the power pinch to the mindless opposition to building infrastructure one finds in some places. And also the suing nuclear plants out of existence, tearing down hydroelectric dams because fish, and general opposition to modernity that very much exists on the environmentalist left.

But they'd be wrong. The right wing has plenty of mindless opposition to building infrastructure. Suing wind and solar farms out of existence, opposing high voltage transmission lines, crying about how farmland is being used when the farmers love wind power generators and, for those who've tried it, agrisolar, but what the hell do they know about running their own land when their neighbors just don't like the looks of things.

Don't blame this stuff on the environmentalist left. Solar and wind are cheaper than anything that you're complaining about now, but you'll whine about how people won't let you build more nuclear boondoggles despite nobody but the insiders being willing to pay the rates for those nuclear boondoggles.

Fucking hypocrite.

Dude, you don't get it. I'm done with you. You appear to literally spend your entire waking day on here arguing with anyone and everyone about everything.

You're inconsequential, and complaining about ignoring positions while making an argument, coming from you, is simply too rich for my blood.

Byeeeeee.

Would you like to guess what your logical fallacy is?

Nope. It would be a waste of time. You'll argue that 2+2 != 4 at this point, which is apparently a technical problem.

Meanwhile, the Rust code is still in, Hellwig can't do anything about it, the rabble will discuss it at will, and you'll just get to live with it.

So after wasting a weekend on this, you've changed nothing. Good job.

Stop huffing your own farts. You have to get oxygen some other way, dude.

A perfect illustration of the point that drinkypoo raised. Staying quiet wouldn't influence parent's behavior one iota, but merely ensure that nothing inconveniences their little bubble.

Well, that is, until they get priced out of their home or drop their insurance like a dumbass, because the capitalists aren't going to subsidize their FAFO costs.

You weird fucking Rust cultists rock.

There it is. The mask slips and the hate comes out. Just another Hellwig.

No, cupcake, YOU responded to MY initial post

No, sweetie, you responded to this Slashdot post.

You didn't have to but you decided to try and sound intelligent which sadly for you failed but that seems to be par for the course for you looking at your past posts.

Ditto as applied to your comment here, and your typical comments in general.

Maybe I'll tell my kids they were an immaculate conception to see the surprise :)

Fictional children from a fictional woman who could stand you don't really impress.

Back to troll school for you.

Then teach me, or master. After all, your toll moderations are far more numerous than mine.

Yes, it was. If he had a professional concern about kernel/rust consuming kernel/dma directly, due to that causing blocking issues with kernel/dma- that is by definition a technical concern.
You're wrong.

This perfectly illustrates the pig-wrestling problem. You're arguing that *people not behaving as expected* in accordance with a policy designed to prevent blocking is a "technical" problem. There's nothing technical about it. The prior version works, the intended version works, and something else is permitted to not work because it is dependent, not the other way around. All technology performs as expected. It's a political problem, because you fear that some people won't, and some people may indeed not, follow the governing policy. And people are not technology.

There is an exception to things that break Rust, in that they are allowed- but must be resolved before they reach Linus, and therefor, before the changes can be released.
Do you get the difference?

Yes. Do you? Did you actually read the 'for instance' example? Of course you didn't.

"In stage 1, all fallout from block layer changes fall upon Andreas and group to fix. Under no circumstance will changes from other contributors be held up, or contributors be held accountable, for breakages of the block rust code. Should contributors wish to sort out these issues themselves, then they are of course free to do so, but it won't be something that gatekeeps other changes."

The difference is that the Rust maintainers are expected to resolve the breakage before it reaches Linus, not the other way around. For someone throwing the "claim bred from ignorance" allegation, or better yet the "dipshit" label, you're doing your best to personally exemplify the behaviors.

There's a reason Miguel Ojeda said: "It only affects those that maintain APIs that are needed by a Rust user, not every single developer.", in response to: "So as of now, as a Linux developer or maintainer you must deal with Rust if you want to or not."

Indeed. It's right there in the document - "The intention is to facilitate friendly adoption of Rust in a subsystem without introducing a burden to existing maintainers who may be working on urgent fixes for the C side." Unfriendly changes that are not urgent -- breaking things without adequate justification -- is something that you must deal with if you want to or not. But apparently "don't be an arbitrary asshole" is too much of a burden for Hellwig, and for you, from all appearances here, to bear.

That's some amusing self-importance you've got there, cheerleader.

Ah, yes, the toxic stench that the kernel development community is renowned for has now completely filled the room. The cheerleaders mean nothing, which is why you so fear and resent any publicity that draws attention to the (suddenly former) behavior of an obstructionist ass.

Amusing.

The why, in the name of fuck, are you talking the shit you talk? Telling some dude "fuck you", because they have an [] uninformed opinion about something he knows nothing about?

However you wish to characterize that reason, yes. To quote some self-important interloper, "You can argue it was, or was not a good one, but you cannot say it didn't exist."

Hellwig had a technical reason for his argument.

That was not a technical reason. There is not a "technical" barrier to the use of Rust. It was a political reason, in that Hellwig thinks that Linus won't follow through on a two week old policy that has not already been broken.

What the discussion doesn't need is the peanut gallery simping up against him.

Suffer. Last I checked, everybody was free to discuss everything about Linux on most of the internet, and your attempt to gatekeep the constituency of software that is in mass use by more than just the maintainers is rejected.

which is why Linus offered the following concession

That wasn't a concession. That was an explanation of the pre-existing policy: "However, exceptionally, for Rust, a subsystem may allow to temporarily break Rust code."

Linux slapped down Hellwig, because he *was* being an obstructionist douche waffle

Shockingly, political pressure from the peanut gallery raised the visibility of the issue and drove a resolution. Linus' original response was nothing of the sort, so it sounds to me like the discussion did need that.

I'm embarrassed for you. You're such a poser.

Posing as what, exactly? I never claimed to be a kernel programmer, or even a Rust programmer. I took some basic CS, C, and C++ courses way back in the pre-eternal September age in connection with an engineering degree. Yet it never took a genius to know that application programming functions like printf() don't work in kernel programming. Well, I take that back. Some master kernel programmer claims that it does.

Obviously there was never any error at all, and I just got incredibly lucky in pointing out that there was one by looking up Rust's printf() analogs before you rolled up. Oh, and it's a "linking" error because of course you link the C standard application library when writing kernel code (wait - you don't?! Do tell again!).

The professional consequences of this alleged failure to identify an actual error will certainly be devastating to me in my legal career.

It'd compile happy as a clam.

Again, not having that debate with you tonight. Go back to the 80s and argue with the CS faculty then. Then get a patent for your time travel invention so that the effort is actually worth it.

The real question here, is why are you trying to argue with someone about this when you clearly don't have the core knowledge to even really have the discussion?

Because someone else is way too confident in the completeness of their knowledge, as well as the supposedly esoteric idea that their lessers couldn't possibly know that printf and other similar functions used in application programming don't carry over to lower layer programming.

I swear, you're an exemplary embodiment of Sayre's law.

learn why posting a link to rustlang was laughably stupid.

Still stubbornly standing just a step away.

Then learn what the word syntax fucking means

I'm not having the pedantic syntax versus semantic error fight with you tonight. You've already pointed out how it violates the rules of the language for kernel programming, but again you just can't bring yourself to follow through.

No, it wasn't.

Yes, it actually was. Also, I'm not particularly concerned with how you think that it looks.