Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Linux Kernel Has Been Forcing Different Behavior For Processes Starting With "X"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by xfcemint View Post
    I have heard that psychotherapists are reasonably effective at curing stubborness.
    https://somaticpsychotherapytoday.co...r-of-stubborn/

    This what happens when a person does not understand this topic. Psychotherapists don't cure stubbornness. Stubbornness is part of being human. The best they can do is guide it in a productive direction. To guide stubbornness in productive direction requires a logical argument that not flaw.

    Pure Double bind/"Irreconcilable Differences" means the stubbornness cannot be guided.

    Originally posted by xfcemint View Post
    You are misrepresenting my words. I said: a regulator, his psychotherapist, representatives of application developers and their psychotherapist(s) need to engage in a serious and reasonable discussion.
    Something you miss psychotherapist try not to be stupid enough to put two parties with "pure double bind"/"Irreconcilable differences" in the same room. Why because the stubbornness can turn into anger and end in violence. Again this is a pure natural human nature outcome.

    Originally posted by xfcemint View Post
    I said DOUBLE BIND. Double bind is not the same as "Irreconcilable Differences". "Irreconcilable Differences" implies an unsolvable problem.

    "Double bind" has a clear explanation of what is happening, while "Irreconcilable Differences" doesn't provide any insight into the problem, it is just a statement of resignation.
    Yes "double bind" explains what happening. The reason why psychology in training has two forms of "double bind" is that before you know that its "Irreconcilable Differences" these presents as a "double bind" these are the "pure double bind" no amount of psychotherapists work can change this they are being valid stubborn as per human nature attempt to push past that will bring out very bad parts of human nature. The pure double binds you have to get all parties to accept as "Irreconcilable Differences" or you are not going to move forwards.

    The other form is correctable. Because there is some falsehood.

    You are right that "Irreconcilable Differences" is resignation and acceptance that you have unsolvable double bind.

    Having explain of what happening might seam like you can solve the problem but the problem is this is too little information. I guess you would have hear of "who what where when why and how" in writing. Psychology you are mostly interested in why and how with "who what where and when" being minor factors. Double bind only answers how. Pure/Irreconcilable Differences is valid why answer for being in double bind location and it the worst answer because if this is the answer its not solvable by using psychotherapist personal in a group setting because all you are going to do is get stuck in the same arguments that no party can prove as absolutely invalid at worst by putting them in a room end up with someone in hospital possibly the psychotherapist who sets up this foolishness.

    None of your 10 points has in fact consider why we are in this location. I think you would think you were writing why but all you have been is writing how. Yes methods you have writing to how to fix problem only put in place a theory how and hope the theory how will work without considering why we are in the problem correctly in the first place.

    You don't want to admit that "Irreconcilable Difference" is a real reason why for lot of the lack of progress. Yes you had incorrect idea that psychotherapists can cure stubbornness and this is something psychotherapists absolutely cannot do and it why the term "Irreconcilable Differences" has to be used by psychotherapists in making plans forwards.

    Yes it can be a very hard path to get people to accept that the problem is Irreconcilable Difference due to human stubbornness as well.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by xfcemint View Post
      We kind-of agreed on "psycho-therapist". It appears to me as less ambiguous than "therapist". In my native language, the word "therapist" is used for a wide variety of professions, and the word "psychiatrist" is commonly used instead of "psychotherapist".​​​
      So your native language has fused those words in UK, South Aficia, USA, and Australian medical(most English medical). Psychiatrist has the qualifications to prescribe medications and do studies and the like but are not allowed to perform sessions. Psychotherapist does all the person to person sessions. This is a very important split.

      Yes in most if not all English language countries if you are on a couch talking about your life you don't have Psychiatrist in the room its Psychotherapist this is from the way the medical system is setup.

      Psychiatrist might give person suger tablets instead of real drugs or lowered does and the Psychotherapist working with the person is clueless to this so gives them no tells. Also psychotherapist if session is not going right can legally look at the prescriptions to double check the Psychiatrist. Yes the system basically has the Psychotherapist like one script behind the Psychiatrist and the Psychotherapist is their to hopefully prevent someone being incorrectly drugged by the Psychiatrist.

      Fun point here is with Psychology is both the Psychiatrist and Psychotherapist can have the same qualifications. The major difference is what they are registered to-do in the medical system. Yes the 4 countries I mentioned does not allow a person to be registered as Psychiatrist and Psychotherapist at the same time.

      Base of the difference is a medical safety thing. Maybe the country you are in xfcemint does not have this clear and legal difference between the two.

      Yes Psychotherapist giving out drugs commits criminal offense and Psychiatrist doing sessions commits criminal offense in those 4 countries.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by xfcemint View Post
        I think that I have just found a good example of point 8: wlroots for Wayland. That's basically it, right?
        - point 8: I find it to be likely that the possibility of incentivizing creation of smaller services and smaller libraries that can be used by multiple vendors (to simplify development of services) has not been sufficiently considered and discussed.​
        This here is a presume that it goes right.
        https://github.com/Plagman/gamescope/issues/26
        Gamescope at times has had issues with other wlroots users because it contains a fork of wlroots at it base.

        Multivendors using smaller libraries seams like a solution until those developers start carelessly including their own copies resulting in either dependency hell or dll hell if you don't have some system to manage this.

        There is a reason why windows has SXS " Side-by-side assembly" and NixOS does what it does and flatpak and snap and appimage... all exist.

        Application developers need fences/rules so they don't ruin everyone day..

        Your point 8 solves nothing. Point 8 has been done for decades. Always with the same failures. Big one being conflicting versions version requirements. Library like wlroots is not 100 percent ABI stable so version dependency is very critical.

        Yes you found example. Not example that proves point 8 but example that proves point 8 idea is flawed.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by xfcemint View Post
          App developers have to develop applications that use APIs, otherwise application development time and cost would be significantly increased. App developers are expected to ship applications as executables, because that simplifies the process of installing applications for end-users. The executables require a stable userspace ABI. The app developers are currently unable to express the contradiction of applications requiring an ABI vs. applications requiring an API, especially due to the regulator having a respected position of authority. The app developers are in a situation known as a double-bind (see description on Wikipedia of a double bind).​​
          This contains mistake. Windows for example does not technically have a stable ABI.
          https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/wi...tion-manifests
          Since year 2000 when you make application under windows it contains manifest data listing the runtimes the application in fact was built with and in fact needs.

          Originally posted by xfcemint View Post
          App developers' preferences are generally in this order: stable API, API, stable ABI, ABI. Also note that shim libraries may exist that can convert an ABI into a shim API. This might change the order of preferences to some degree.​​​
          This is what application developers say they want. But it not what they are really using. Visual Studio(windows) and Xcode(mac os) both when they make software mark the software with what it needs based on what it was built with. More detail than you need to dynamically load libraries.

          Originally posted by xfcemint View Post
          This incentivizes the ecosystem of Linux distributions ("the ecosystem") to providing tools for managing the situation of unstable APIs. Those tools have grown sufficiently sophisticated to solve practically all the problems arising from of such a situation, except for the need of app developers to ship executables.​
          Is this true I would say not on ship applications. Remember you have NIX and Flatpak and Snap these all provide application developers with way to ship their executables with include data like windows manifest will be processed to get a snapshot in time of the ABI so application works predictably. Yes snapshot in time of the ABI is what Windows, Mac OS and Android really use for what appears to be ABI stability.

          Application developers on Linux are mostly in a bind because they are not willing to back a solution. You need to step back and look how windows and macos really work.

          The features that make Windows and MacOs appear to have stable ABI when they really don't have been integrated into those platforms default IDEs(integrated development environments) that application developers don't need to think about it most of the time leading to the false belief that the ABI of Windows and MacOS is stable so they can now demand this of Linux and do nothing when the Linux world refused to give them this. Then look at how well integrated is nix and flatpak... into IDE solutions under Linux notice mostly its not.

          https://jgrulich.cz/2018/09/03/flatp...t-in-kdevelop/ here KDE that packages most of there applications as flatpak and here is the KDE default IDE. Notice hell yes you have to manually write the flatpak manifest. Under Windows with visual studio the SXS manifest would be 90%+ automatically written by the IDE based on what you choose to use when you create new application same with xcode and macOS.

          xfcemint does the problem have anything todo with Stable ABI? is a good question and the answer is most likely the problem has nothing todo with stable ABIs. Or is the problem simply the solutions under Linux that have manifest for compatibility have poor IDE integration so are too hard for most application developers to use? This is most likely the true answer.

          Are application developers in double-bind is presume you need to remove. Maybe application developers should invest in fixing the IDE problems so that making portable applications on Linux is simpler.

          Comment

          Working...
          X