arisuchan    [ tech / cult / art ]   [ λ / Δ ]   [ psy ]   [ ru ]   [ random ]   [ meta ]   [ all ]    info / stickers     temporarily disabledtemporarily disabled

/tech/ - technology


formatting options

Password (For file deletion.)

Help me fix this shit.

Kalyx ######

File: 1538248802452.jpg (136.12 KB, 960x1280, 1487608590469.jpg)


Any scientists or engineers that opt to use FOSS software on their spare time or even at work if you're crazy when everyone uses proprietary. I'm currently in uni in burgerland and most of the software we use are proprietary. I would like to avoid using them as I can. But checking on what companies expect you to know they often mention these proprietary programs.

It's important that the use of FOSS programs start from our education in order to cause a shift in the industry that thus the standards who feel compelled to opt for the proprietary option

Here are some software that is often kept up and used:
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


my uni teaches bash, git, vi, emacs, etc
be jealous


What school?


it's a locationdox but i can say it's a calstate university


Same, but in a state north of you.


scikit-rf for having fun with radio frequency for python users.

File: 1514087081514.png (20.2 KB, 962x141, stallman on pedophilia.png)


One of Richard Stallman's better quotes
19 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


They already tried to do that. I think it is mostly pointless. I would like to compare it to the case of John von Neumann.

He was a hungarian-born dude famous for his work in compsci and to some extent maths around the world war 2 era. His work had way more impact on today's IT than anything GNU or open source, simply because he put his effort in much earlier. Almost all relevant hardware uses the Neumann architecture today. Yet, people call him John von Neumann. The family name might be of germanic origin, but the dude is hungarian so his name is Neumann János, end of story. If someone would like to argue that the germanic name requires the 'von', I ask why Nicolas Sarkozy isn't called Sárközy Miklós, because that family name is of hungarian origin.

So, as you might already feel it, names don't really matter. The next argument against me could be that the free-free thing causes confusion. I believe this is irrelevant because the root cause of the confusion is a lack of interest. The vast majority of people, and even a huge portion of people working compsci don't give two fucks about it. The main exceptions being those who have to explain it over and over, and those who align themselves with free software in relation to their political ideology. Sure, I know, it's a part of everyone's everyday lives, the infrastructure runs on it… but so is carbon. I mean, where would we be without carbon molecules, or water? To most people, personally knowing the difference has little impact on their lives, and any serious impact is in the plane of "what if" scenarios.

There is little proof that a world where every layperson is clearly aware of the distinction between libre and free software is worth the effort of making it happen. Most people who believe there is a great world where this is the case know that this is just a minor detail about it, and put their efforts elsewhere.

If you ask me, I'm fine with free as in beer gnu software and John von Neumann (however much the latter annoys me).


I think the FSF should call it Free and Open Software because when most people hear open software they think Linux and if you ever heard open software you can look it up and get the the same also you are still telling people that it will respect your freedom.




File: 1515649334029.jpg (776.55 KB, 742x1060, b9Be6dEE1d00eE91cADfaeB3AE….jpg)

>I think the FSF should call it Free and Open Software

Not a good idea because the OSI likes to think they have authority over what "Open" means when it comes to software, and would likely be one of the first Google search hits when a layperson looks up the term "open software".

This detail is important because the OSI is the corporate-approved software foundation—as opposed to the FSF—and their licenses and political bent are biased toward the continued promulgation of non-free software—just in a "consumer-friendly" way, if you will; thus, there's naturally less of a focus on user-empowerment and freedom.

With that in mind, if you manage to direct someone unfamiliar with the terms "free software" or "open source" to an OSI webpage vs. an FSF one you have an extraordinarily opportune moment to, subtly, nudge a person toward a particular sanitized view of software freedom; after all, how likely is it that a person looks to another source after reading from what seems to be an authority on "open" software?

Here's some material that further elaborates these points:


just use a vim layer lmao

File: 1526878536227.jpg (120.06 KB, 643x577, 1516866100679.jpg)


Can someone explain to me what's the appeal of snap and/or flatpak? It seems to me a step backwards, I thought functional package managers like Nix and Guix are the future.
10 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>the goal is to try and pull repositories of applications away from being distro-specific
This is the primary reason that the devs of snap/flatpak say.
So instead of porting to different flavors of Linux, software devs can just do snaps/flatpaks and it will run across all distributions provided they too, have snap/flatpak installed.

I think I've read somewhere that it is also possible or planned to enable the installation of different versions of the same software, and the advantage is that the user doesn't have to worry about conflicts anymore, since you're installing the whole thing plus dependencies

Ah, BTW IIRC, they also make the programs run in their own namespace, or was it firewalled? For security.


>It's just the next step of the march towards the death of general purpose computing.
What does application sandboxing have to do with the death of general purpose computing?


File: 1536943603774.png (79.79 KB, 1200x600, og-drm-ugly.png)

>What does application sandboxing have to do with the death of general purpose computing?
Because it's just one step away from "app stores" for walled gardens.


>Because it's just one step away from "app stores" for walled gardens.
The problem with app stores / walled gardens is the centralization of power, not that they distribute self-contained applications.


Looks like some people are not happy with how flatpak handles security:

File: 1538046916670.jpeg (30.44 KB, 620x465, 2027821i.jpeg)


Do you guys think it's possible to make Accela or any other kind of electronic drug IRL? If so, how exactly would they work? And if Accela can't be done, what can with this kind of technology at this point?


No way you'd just swallow some large machine/electronic parts. Just think about the fact that it needs to get out again somehow. Have fun digesting that thing (and don't forget it needs a power source too). We'd need a whole lot of inventions and new materials before something like this could exist.

If anything I could imagine a permanent implant (like a pacemaker, but in your brain) or nanobots.


File: 1538070301523.jpg (13.14 KB, 290x248, 290px-CapsuleEndoscope.jpg)

>No way you'd just swallow some large machine/electronic parts.
Look up capsule endoscopy, which is a pill shaped camera that the patient swallows and that travels through the entire digestion system. This tech is increasingly becomming common and is definitely not science fiction.


I think that could be pretty useful. Maybe you can control it with a mini monitor, and load software to it that will tell it to administer certain kinds of mind altering experiences on command, via stimulating different areas of the brain or something.


File: 1538077724900.jpeg (8.39 KB, 219x230, download.jpeg)

that is, if we're talking permanent implants. As far as capsule endoscopy goes, that's actually pretty dope. Problem is, potential addicts could easily od from the battery acid alone.

File: 1520740755465.jpg (119.36 KB, 500x383, Sharing_is_caring.jpg)


I've spent the last 10 years of my life building cool soykaf for other people, and I'm sick of it. I want to start a web/software/app development studio with any and every Alice that cares to join me. Contribute however you'd like. I'll share a contact email at the bottom of this post.

A little about me:
- Active developer for 10+ years, using languages: C, Ruby, Python, Golang, JS
- DevOps guy for a few years (Linux only)
- Working a lot on the web lately using React/Node, usually a Rails API backend.
- Got a few security certs forever ago, but really only use that knowledge to crack networks when I need free wifi, and write the occasional exploit PoC.

Let's go all commie on this. Let's pump out some SaaS products, Apps, whatever, and split the pot with everyone. Sounds fun to me. Hit me up.


>active developer for 10+ years
>posts on larping message board for edgy firstworlder highchoolers
>Rails API
>use that knowledge to crack networks when I need free wifi


There was an attempt a couple months ago but I don't remember it going anywhere (Or maybe I was out of the loop). In my personal experience once one of these anonymous online startup things gets rolling there's no stopping it.

You're wrong.
I'm a larping young adult.


I'm definitely down for some random coding with Alice. Let's see if this actually gets anywhere.

File: 1506461531925.gif (1.32 MB, 630x569, TS.gif)


Anyone else here study computational (or any other brand of physical) chemistry? What are you reading? Right now I'm a few chapters into Mukamel's Nonlinear Spectroscopy text.

For those who aren't in the field but are interested, I think Szabo and Ostlund's text is a good introduction.
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


At work we have Schrodinger's suite, which is expensive and proprietary. But, it works well (as it should). In general, computational biology/chemistry/physics is a giant mess when it comes to filetypes. PDB files are literally space dependent, and it's a giant pain to renumber atoms PDB files so that PyMOL can perform accurate RMSD between outputs from various programs.


File: 1508280810593.jpg (349.69 KB, 700x700, 1429842687822.jpg)

Yeah, there aren't many (good) FOS quantum chemistry packages, but I'd recommend taking a look at pyscf ( ). I haven't used it myself, but one of the speakers at a conference I attended a few months ago made it sound ridiculously easy to implement new methodologies in it, and if that's true I can't imagine having too much trouble getting more basic calculations to work in it. I doubt the input files will need to be compatible with punch cards :P

Also >>1407 's mention of file format shenanigans made me remember another useful tool that I actually have used for a long time: OpenBabel is a program that can convert chemistry related data files to and from just about any well known format. I don't think it will set up your entire input file for you, but it definitely helps with manipulating/converting geometries. Enjoy!


ORCA is pretty solid. Like GAMESS, but modern. The documentation is much better as well.


>tfw cryptominers keeping the graphics card prices high
amd pls think of the science


Nice to see a chemistry-related thread here! I've just started my MSc in chemistry and somehow got sucked into surface chemistry/physical chemistry and nanosci. Looking for some books from which I can start getting into surface plasmon spectroscopy since I'll be working on building an SPR apparatus for a while. Still haven't found a good book yet.
Computational chemistry seems interesting. It was introduced in my BSc time, but really poorly. What are some "hot topics" that people in computational chemistry are currently working on? And what molecule is that in the OP? I'm guessing pink resembles silicon and yellow resembles phosphorus?

File: 1532588065188-0.jpg (15.71 KB, 300x168, lain_room.jpg)


Hi lainons!

Do you know some place where can i find a repo or a list of books or something for learning mechanical engineering?

I have a compSci Bsc degree, but where i live i dont have much programming work to do, just occasional ones, or i repair servers and desktops….
So next semester i am going for a mechanical engineering degree, casue there is a lot of work in here, in this field.

Thanks lainons in advance for your help!

File: 1532462880312.jpg (165.14 KB, 1520x1080, comp.jpg)


Hello arisu.I'm sure most of you are aware of or use libreboot. Even more may use Thinkpads in general, which is what my question is about.I have a thinkpad x60 and I just got a t400 for libreboot.Can any of you help me get started with upgrading/hacking a computer already running libreboot.I saw something on upgrading cpu's before which makes no sense to me, so if there is any intro material or a wiki I can browse I'd be happy if you could share this with me.


Libreboot shouldn't have anything to do with it. If you have to ask for information and don't know what you're doing, this is not something I would recommend attempting.


I was trying to inb4 someone tells me "install libreboot+gentoo."
The wiki says:
>"It is believed that all or most laptops of the model T400 are compatible. See notes about CPU compatibility for potential incompatibilities."
and there was a small reference to using a quad core on the t400
>"Very likely to be compatible, but requires hardware modification. Based on info from German forum post about installing Core Quad CPU on T500 found in coreboot mailing list. Currently work in progress and no guide available."
Anyways I have a few other computers that I wouldn't mind messing up.Right now I'm just interested in learning.Thank you for the previous advice btw.

File: 1531719407194.png (170.05 KB, 512x512, qwe_download.png)


I have an idea, but i really don't know if it make any sense. Asking for your opinion

I have a laptop (not so new, but powerful enogugh for VM's) and would like to install
some minimal linux distro for just lunching other OS'es, but mainly for windows.

In my point of view it will simplify managing/reinstalling/wipingoff windows os. when I need fresh install I just put a copy of it in right directory and lunch from VM (purely from terminal without GUI) so I don't need proceed any installation from scratch anymore. I can encrypt/decrypt guest os when needed and VM will add some extra security layer if I can call it this way.

What the traps and pitfalls of doing this? Make any sense?
>Negative thing it will extend the time for booting: BIOS/UEFI->Bootloader->minimal linux->guestOS


In principal this will work.

Some people have made questions over the topic of using virtualization for security purposes – it adds another large layer that could open many more vulnerabilities.

Quite how you'd launch a vm with graphics directly from the commandline, Im not sure, I'd imagine if you have a gpu to passthough this might be ideal. Perhaps this is the case.


Qemu/KVM is the best way to do what you're describing. If your focus is really on disposable VMs, Lubuntu and Virtualbox is easier to get going and easier to get right. Don't sweat the host overhead if you have any business virtualizing Windows.


>Some people have made questions over the topic of using virtualization for security purposes – it adds another large layer that could open many
>more vulnerabilities.

What do you mean? what kind of vulnerabilities?


I dont know of any specifically, the argument is that inevitably you have more code, and with more code there is more space for there to be bugs.


Proper virtualization decreases attack surface because hypervisors have less code than kernels, but adds overhead.
OP, try Qubes, it is graphical and already has security measures you won't know about. Or you may read their documentation with code and come up with something better.

File: 1530031179353.jpg (993.83 KB, 3000x1980, Big_Bang.jpg)


Maybe this board isn't quite a place for this but I want to know what you guys think on this.

There are so many different thing in the world. Just think about ANYTHING out there. Think about all the different things happening right now on the entire Earth.
Now just think how many different things there are in the UNIVERSE! There are so many different possibilities of SOMETHING and absolutely ANYTHING happening. But the Universe isn't endless, or is it? If it is, then it means that somewhere out there might(!) be an exact copy of our Earth down to the sand grand. It would mean that absolutely any chance there is of something happening is possible. … But if the Universe isn't endless, what comes after the edge of it? WHAT IS THERE??? Maybe there is something. Something we can't even describe with words. So far we know that the Universe is still expanding after the Big Bang(the most probable theory), but it will stop at some point in time. After the energy of the Big Bang has come to an end, what will then happen to the Universe?
1 post and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


>Might sound stupid, but what I thought of is another Big Bang.

It's not stupid, this stuff exists:

I don't think there is a second me out there though, things like the human brain are way too complex for "copies" to exist for no reason. You'd need way to many tries with evolution to arrive at anything that is similar to humans. I do believe in other life forms though, but they'd be completely different in any case. Maybe some kind of sponge that covers whole continents. Who knows.

I love to think about the edge of the universe, but it's mind boggling. It's where space ends, so can there be other space? how are they separated? then what is between them? I don't know.

I like to think that people will laugh about all our theories in a thousand years so any of the far fletched stuff we come up with today is likely nonsense. Like, just look at dark energy and dark matter. It makes up 95% of all "stuff" and we have no clue what it is, we just know that is exists, or that our theories are so damn wrong they only work if you make this all up. Thats a huge amount of soykaf right there.


>I don't think there is a second me out there though, things like the human brain are way too complex for "copies" to exist
I think what Alice meant was that this would be true if the universe was truly infinite. In that case, by the laws of infinity, there would be infinite exact copies of your brain, along with infinite copes with one extra neuron etcetera. The universe if almost certainly not infinite, but who knows what lies outside it. Perhaps Infinite copies of our universe, along side infinite versions which are almost the same, except for a slight difference at the start that results in you being named Grabdor.


I see a few problems with your thinking. The first one third of your post is just "woah, big things are sooo big, woah dude mind blown exact earth copy". Being this impressed with something opens you up to being gullible and think new-age. Magicians, clowns, parents try to get children into this mindset to sell them anything they want, be it santa or the importance of eating your veggies. If you get into this mindset, wait until it goes away and treat any ideas you got on it as if it was the ramblings of someone on LSD.

>But if the Universe isn't endless, what comes after the edge of it? WHAT IS THERE???

You are abusing language or thinking statically. If the edge of the universe is the edge of the universe, the question doesn't make sense, is invalid, is just language abuse.
If there is however something beyond the edge of the universe, it wasn't the edge of the universe after all. You were thinking statically. The actual edge is after this "WHAT IS THERE???" thing. This is the same mistake as calling atoms atoms - atom means "cannot be divided" but they can into quarks, yet people still call it atom, language is being stupidly static. If you say there is an edge of the universe and something beyond it, you are calling some inner layer the edge of the universe, you're being static. You need to find it a new name and call the thing that is outside of everything else the edge of the universe. You need to dynamically adjust the name of things, or you'll fall into language bullsoykaf like this.

We don't _know_ the big bang, it's just a theory as is an expanding universe and everything ever claimed by physicists. Be aware that when you incorporate anything claimed by physics as a field, you are doing a game of "what if". It's good for practical purposes and short-term simple predictions.

I won't even bother with the big-bang simulation part, it's just more of the impressed mind-blown shenanigans.



Yeah, I hate the fact that people call atoms atoms, it doesn't make sense, it's divisible, Democritus is disappointed with us.

I only wanted to say that (._.i)


Neverminding the fun police, there are in fine two logical possibilities. Space is infinitely large, even if it's just unthinkable distances of emptiness beyond the universe's expansion, beyond dark matter, etc. Or it is not infinitely large, and if we arrived at its border, we would end up on the other side and eventually back to where we started. The latter is in my mind, the only imaginable answer, among the reasons being that it doesn't make you have the painful experience of trying to picture infinity in your head.

Delete Post [ ]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]
[ Catalog ]