Keeping Linux Reliable
Does shoddy code justify speed? Does speed justify shoddy code?
Yesterday my laptop exceeded 1,000 days in uptime. It does not use Wayland, it uses an old kernel (pre-Rust), and it is air-gapped.
From what I can gather, a lot of the more modern releases of Linux are slop (not every piece of slop inserted gets marked as slop or "assisted by") and most developers cannot understand its code. In many cases, zero or one person actually audited the code.
If Linux becomes a lot more reliable in the future, we'll know why and who is responsible for it.
In the "Open Source" camp, unlike Free software, they focused on how "collaborative development" kept more eyeballs on code, hence it was likely superior in quality. With slop, all this goes out the window. It becomes Windows. █