Peter0x44

How virtual calls and vtables work in C++ was a gap in my knowledge that bothered me for a long time. I spent a few months on-and-off researching and writing about this topic, and this blogpost is the result: peter0x44.github.io/posts/vtables-… Please read and spread it around!

@raggi Try polyfill-glibc, as I mentioned there. It's worked for every single executable I have used it with so far.

This is exactly the problem: you have to build with a 20y old toolchain. The Linux userspace toolchains have never done a good job of cross building or in this case back building - and making a 20y old but new enough to be good build setup is a shitshow

@MisutaaAsriel @bee_fumo Isn't that expected? How is ucrt or msvcrt on windows any different? I think it's expected that a C library has implementation details that "leak".

@peter0x44 @bee_fumo The problem is Glibc isn't the only C library. It "leaks" things into compiled code that make the results incompatible with systems built with alternative C libraries like Musl.

Even Linus himself has been complaining about this for a decade plus. Frankly blame glibc. Because that is where the problems start.

@TheGingerBill > To make Linux viable for the layman, Valve had to make Proton (derived from Wine) so that Win32 API became the first and only stable ABI on Linux. They had to do this either way, valve can't just ignore the whole windows software and game library

I don't know if a lot of people have thought why this happened. To make Linux viable for the layman, Valve had to make Proton (derived from Wine) so that Win32 API became the first and only stable ABI on Linux. Why did Linux Distro devs not care about stable ABI historically?

@jartine @01Singularity01 @Scobleizer With vibe code, it becomes even easier to implement and clone anyone else's software, too. Regardless of opensource or not.

@01Singularity01 @Scobleizer Can you name a single example of a value add that someone like me wouldn't whip up one weekend just for fun and then give it away for free?

Open Source's big problem. Last night I went to a Y Combinator party in San Francisco and met an entrepreneur who is making a top Open Source AI model. He told me it is very hard to make money in open source. Yeah, it is cool being popular, he told me, but figuring out how to make a business out of it is proving to be very difficult. The Chinese are pounding the price into the ground with their open source models. Which makes it tough. In the old world of Open Source you could make money with them by consulting, service, etc, like RedHat did. But in this new world, he told me, it's much harder to make a good business out of it. Is anyone making a good business out of open source? What would your advice be to the businesses that are trying to support Open Source?

@jartine @Scobleizer Opensource has some reputational benefits. Of course, those are downstream from curiosity and giving, but it certainly helps. I wouldn't be where I am today without those commons.

My project was adopted by 32% of enterprises. I have no idea who any of them are. I only know because Wiz (a business intelligence security company) published an aggregate report on it. We had spotty download statistics from Hugging Face but Mozilla didn't trust them, because we saw very few people engaging on GitHub and Discord. There's no way to monetize a community of dark matter developers you can't see. People pay for things if you have leverage, it's scarce, or it solves their pain. In the 2000s when open source was immature and the world was unfamiliar with how it worked, there was an abundance of folks willing to pay for help solving the problems that caused. But as Linux and friends became more polished and perfect, Red Hat's business model dried up. Software is infinitely copyable and requires zero effort to maintain, which makes it fundamentally at odds with having any kind of economy. There have been numerous efforts to make software not be the way that it is. For example, software is the only thing on Earth that can be both patented and copyrighted. Both of them failed. Folks would pirate. Patent trolls abused it. Open source rejected it. Additionally folks have tried to regulate software, with things like FIPS standards, that need corporations to pay for experts for certifications but this was rejected by the industry too. You have little hope of making any income off that unless you're a government contractor and that means having the right connections. There definitely exists an economy for certifying and owning the risks of open source, but I don't think much of the money goes to the people who did the software work. That's just how their world operates, and I think it's a good thing that open source has helped them succed. The most successful model for profiting off software to date, has been to never distribute it. You put it in the cloud and charge rent to anyone wanting to use it. It's the only way the software industry could survive, and everything which isn't that just became open source. At the end of the day, open source simply isn't compatible with any economic model we know, because it's the absense of an economic model. Capitalism won't work. Socialism won't work. The only funding model I've seen work is the most ancient one, which is patronage. Before devices like patents existed ancient innovators would seek the sponsorship of the most powerful folks in their day. This is how people like Archimedes, Michelangelo, etc. got paid. So I wish people wouldn't try to solve the open source monetization problem because there isn't one. Money is orthogonal and it should stay orthogonal. I think it should be a gentleman amateur activity rather than an institutionalized role people perform to feed their kids. Open source is the byproduct of curiosity and it's not the sort of thing you can industrialize. If you bring too much money into the equation, it creates liabilities, responsibilities, etc. that corrupt the motivations at endanger those of us who just want to be curious. However this isn't just my wish, it's a warning. I've seen many folks try to solve this unsolvable problem and it makes them all half mad, and if they're smart then they give up before they go completely mad. The solution for an open source developer looking for income, to me, has always seemed as clear as day. You either win the affection of a Medici, or you make your money doing something else. One modern Medici is the European social safety net. Many open source developers hail from Europe since their economic policies ensure people have food and shelter, giving them the freedom to focus on anything, while taking away many freedoms to be enterprising. In America, I was able to fund my open source work on Cosmopolitan Libc for many years with a very simple stock trading strategy, which was to invest 100% of my money in a tech company on Charleston Road. With financial markets giving me money for nothing, I felt it was fair that I should work on open source to kick back some of the benefits to the community. I've actually been discovering new ways to redistribute wealth from Wall Street to the open source community. It makes me happy to have the opportunity to apply my work towards building a thing for me. I mean, you can't spend your whole career making the tools to other people do things without ever doing a thing yourself? What's great is that financial markets are unbiased. It's surprisingly competitive giving things away for free. I've dealt with plenty of hate and harassment for sharing software with the world. But the NASDAQ won't hate me because of what I am or what it thinks I believe. All that matters is if I can write a cleverer algorithm. That's the thing open source is supposed to be about. The only tradeoff is I'll stop making money the moment I share my algorithm with everyone. So there's no glory or recognition in doing it. Just dollars. In life, you can optimize for earning respect. You can optimize for money. You can even optimize for impact. But you can't maximize all of the above. The world just does not let it happen. But it'll give you a lot more of one if you're willing to give up the others. So anyone who's made the intentional tradeoff to max out one stat at the expense of the others, shouldn't feel unhappy they weren't given all three.

@rfleury @realpastaya SDL authors don't recommend you static link it and actually even went as far as giving some environment variable that lets you replace the SDL out with a newer one even if you static link (all calls to SDL go through a function pointer table)

@realpastaya You should NOT dynamically link Raylib or SDL.

why did they create dynamic linking then? no shit bro its obviously useful (for stuff like raylib, sdl, os apis, etc...) no way im gonna statically link os apis

@ekemini58110 It's just MCP. It's not specific to claude in any way.

Does this mean Blender won't be free for users any longer 🤔

@JennaGrip Nothing was actually learned from your post either.

It looks like something someone who don't know what they're doing would make. Which would be quaint for a first novice project, but considering a machine generated all of it, it's just pointless. Nothing was actually learned. No one grew as an artist.

@WhiteHouse The worst of millennial humor.

President Trump saying WINNING for 1 hour. 🔁 Can't stop, won't stop.

@sciad I've never not had access to all of these things. I don't use them because I don't like them, though...

Some great UI design from github

@SheriefFYI This irritates me so much... For example, w64devkit had someone asking to update the 7z sfx stub due to some vulnerabilities with scary CVE numbers. It's responsible for extracting ONE known good zip.

digital security people are retarded paperclip maximizers who would be very happy if we did nothing useful on our computers as that makes risk trend towards zero. they need to be stopped and sensible risk tolerances put into place.

@nscocoanaut @0xBoku @davepl1968 It's still a cool feature now. If only it wasn't so poorly implemented...

@peter0x44 @0xBoku @davepl1968 It was a cool feature when it first appeared and most files where just kilobytes

7zip decrypts zips about 10x faster than native Windows extraction tool, are they even trying to make the OS better anymore

@lisyarus I always want my dependencies to build from source. No downloading binaries. I don't use rust.

@peter0x44 Imo the easiest implementation is wgpu-native, they have pre-built binaries and they have other (non-vulkan) backends

#graphics folks, I'm thinking of modernizing my undergrad graphics course and move it from OpenGL. Vulkan is too hardcore for an introductory course, Metal & DX12 are not cross-platform enough. Wdyt, how deranged is it to use native WebGPU? (maybe even in rust via wgpu)

@CEOofFuggy Usecase for having users?

Maybe GNOME should take this as a sign... No, it's the users that are wrong

@loopunit @rfleury I like cmake. But saying you're having "antipatterns" by not using it is certainly unreasonable.

@rfleury Both your examples were antipatterns. Once you start having to deal with automated testing, wrangling dependencies, and deploying infrastructure, you have to accept some complexity, choose the right tools & not build fragile, bespoke solutions.

you can always spot a game developer by their specific collection of antipatterns

@rfleury Is it supposed to be marked as paid?

An explanation from a stream on how caches in the RAD Debugger codebase are asynchronously filled and evicted. dgtlgrove.com/p/asynchronous…