massivefailure

Option 5: throw your spyware pile of trash phone in the garbage can where it belongs.

Sick of debating you people on this. You can't understand basic logic which tells me right away that you're either not a programmer or a really bad one, or, more likely, you have some sort of investment in the language's success.

There's no conflict in the statements that you need to be a good C programmer and that it's impossible to be a perfect programmer. This non-argument is you either not understanding common sense and logic, or you grasping at straws in the vain hope that people will think you're right because you're so obsessed with your language of the year that will be forgotten soon enough and replaced with, again, C and other traditional, good, useful languages.

I don't know which is the case, but the frenzied, unhinged way you're trying to defend rust makes me think you have an investment in the language in some way, which makes your argument invalid. I have no such attachments.

If you can't understand such common sense arguments, I can't believe that you even know how to write "Hello World" in any language.

No one who knows anything about C uses insecure functions without having a good reason and a good foundation around them to keep them secure. The functions are there to allow C to have maximum flexibility and low-level access to a system. For the most part, these shouldn't be used, and any decent C programmer knows that. Comparing that with Rust where people think the entire language is inherently safe and has zero awareness of what they might be doing is laughably insecure is the heart of the problem.

Been programming longer than most of you have been alive, kids. Keep on defending your hacked together tricycle language and then crying when you manage to tip it over because of your overconfidence.

Well, guess who shouldn't be programming then?

Gnome is super stable in which alternative universe? I swear, I'm sitting here conversing with the internet from a universe where everything is completely the opposite from how things are here.

The biggest lie of programming these days is just because something is coded in [trendy "secure" language of the day, including Rust] means it's secure. Bullcrap. It's how you code things that make it secure or not. You can be proficient enough in C to make programs that are much more secure vs. rust. The fact that everyone makes mistakes and programming is an enormous beast to wrangle with makes things insecure and needs to be monitored and fixed.

Also the fact Bitcoin is essentially a pyramid scheme. Get more people into it to artificially inflate its value, take the profits, leave everyone else with diminished value, build it up again, get rich, repeat forever.

Crypto should be illegal.

Gnome is currently the least stable major desktop. By far. It's an absolute disaster crippled by tons of little bugs that creep in when you least expect them. Even if you don't add anything to it and use Gnome as vanilla as you can get it, it's still going to be problematic.

Plasma has some small bugs here and there -- and there was a point a few years ago when Plasma seemed like they didn't care about bugs and instead just threw out a ton of shiny new pointless features every release instead -- but recently it is incredibly solid in general and more usable than anything else in Linux, by far. One of the only things I find "buggy" about Plasma is when someone tries to over-rice the desktop with tons of widgets and other things everywhere.