It does happen, but I am not sure this is what free software needs. We live in a world we adding a warning to a C compiler is carefully consider because it might overload maintainers. And lack of maintainers is the problem. The least thing we need is a more complex language that also has supply chain issues.

Also again, as context for people who want to build their own opinion: In Germany, CO2 emissions are substantially declining with the replacement of coal and lignite by renewables: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fenergy-charts.info%2Fcha...

One can complain that it is not yet as low as in France, but it is also not surprising that an ongoing transition that is not completed yet is not yet at the same level as a transition that was completed decades ago. Making this point would be rather idiotic.

Just for others (I know you not care about the truth or even about having a balanced discussion where arguments are acknowledged): The declared goal of the subsidies for renewables in Germany was to create an economy of scale to bring prices down, which was extremely successful. In contrast, cost for nuclear in western countries never went down and instead increased over time despite subsidies.

Yes, but in practice this was never a problem for me. But if it were, the solution would be to package the software for Debian instead of creating snap packages. And if the complaint is that this too much work for different distributions, then the answer would still not be snap but to revive the LSB.

This is not my experience. I am on Debian and I did not experience anything like DLL hell in since I switched to Linux 30 years ago. I can see that if one passes locally compiles binaries around in a company that it does not work automatically, but the solution to this does not require anything like Snap. Where there is friction, then the main issue is lack of standardization, but this done intentionally by commercial Linux distribution to differentiate, and Snap and co. a part of the problem and not the solution.

And in this case, you do not even have access to the room in the basement, because only the landlord has the key.

Lol, I guess I just made similar points replying to you in another thread. Ignore that.

Rust is also not memory safe. Safe Rust is memory safe. The main difference is that the safe subset of Rust is much clearer demarcated than in in C++, but the importance of this is massively oversold.

While I agree that C(C++ should have left no room for Rust by having perfect memory safety, the reality is that you can write very safe C/C++ code if you want to.
What Rust offers is the idea that you can achieve perfect memory safety without sacrificing performance. In practice, this is much less useful and bit based on exaggeration, but it makes for an excellent sales story. That other parts of the Rust ecosystem are a complete supply chain and maintenance disaster makes everything much less safe in reality^1, but who cares .., because perfect memory safety!^2

1. so that I now after decades where this was working I now need to worry again about the availability of security updates in Linux distributions.
2. If nobody makes a bug using "unsafe" but then this is not the fault of Rust, of course.

At least in Germany, the system was designed so that end-user price would not go down to avoid a rebound effect, i.e. to avoid more consumption due to lower prices. So low end-user prices were never a real goal.

It would have been much more useful to clean up the code that is widely deployed.

My guess is that it was pressure from Google.

Out of curiosity, what was the technological promising thing about it?

I only see the constant last-minute fixes it seems to need and that user space tooling is dropped from Debian for being unmaintainable, which tells me that - regardless what technological wonder it may be - it is certainly not a filesystem I would use.

As a scientist who lived in the US for a while. I definitely prefer Europe.

Indeed. And we can see that Germany does not import much power from France, e.g. less then from Denmark or Norway.