A number of years ago one of the chief Vortex devs, when asked whether they'd support Linux, said no way, no how -- Vortex was built using Windows tooling. Better to make a clean-sheet manager, which there were no plans to do.

A year later, a cross-platform, clean-sheet mod manager is announced. New devs hired to work on it, community built around it, active engagement with user base helped shape the product. Despite being clean, good, actively developed, no technical debt, and actively desired by the market segment, it's canceled.

To appease the peasants Nexus asserts they are "supporting" Linux by suckering remora-like onto Valve's compatibility work. The Vortex update will only be supported on Steam hardware; the rest of you Linux losers are on your own.

Did I get the timeline right? Sure wouldn't want to, I dunno, look like an _idiot_ or something....

View this comment - View article - View full comments

One of the biggest jump scares I've ever had was in the original XCOM. The story line, the graphics, the background music, the dark landing zone all created an ominous, you're-gonna-die creepy feeling. One of my squaddies took a step away from the drop ship and BANG! An alien suddenly appeared next to a haystack and fired at the squaddie, who immediately died.

Yeah, my first encounter with a hostile alien did not go well.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

New owner. Six months in, cuts innovative projects in favor of lagging main product. Announcement ineffectively disguises bean-counter fiat.

Beginning of the end for Nexus.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

You can always install `pamac` for an app store-like experience. There are different versions depending on how much you want to give users. The "full meal deal" includes Arch, AUR, Flatpak, and Snap.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

"If AI was so wonderful, the rich would have kept more of it for themselves." --paraphrasing Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain)

As businesses get cleverer at exploiting AI, AI gets better at exploiting people, and the rich get richer exploiting both, where are the 'wins' for the average person? Remember when the internet was supposed to level the playing field, increase availability of information, and raise entire societies out of ignorance and poverty? AI proponents aren't even claiming that now.

Instead, we're told (from the top) that AI is the future, AI will be everywhere, and we might as well get used to it. No whispers of intangible benefits to humanity, no pointing at significantly better outcomes for society. No mention anywhere of guard rails, sensible regulation, incremental testing, or 'disaster planning'. Just speeding headlong into the future, hoping to extract more gold from the peasantry.

Little Timmy can go play with his AI toys. I'm not going to fund his bratty behavior.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I wonder how (if) they're re-imbursing previous purchasers/subscribers??

(Laughs and laughs until gets hiccups and has to lie down)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

3 years into ai bubble, literally zero improvements and usefulness, yet some crazy managers still hype on it.

Marketroids. Those are the "crazy managers" you speak of. Anyone in Sales/ Marketing** is frothing over AI and driving it hard. The people who build stuff*** are hesitant, trying to work out the problems and processes while being ordered to convert. Trends are always marketing-driven. Bubbles are always marketing-driven. CEOs love getting exposure and face time as a wealth-generation tactic.

**CEOs are almost always from the sales/ marketing track. That's why they're so eager to promote hot, frothy trends.

***I'm referring to devs who actually know about programming and the code base. Kids fresh out of code camp don't figure into this equation.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

This is the correct move. I hope Fedora keep it. Opinions from non-developers and people not understanding how AIs work can be actively disregarded.

Without even touching the AI-good, AI-bad argument, I can only point to individuals, companies, and government entities who self-certify that they are good actors. To bad actors, the opportunity to abuse that trust is irresistable. When it comes to code check-ins and the AI/ no AI declaration is appended, I would want to know:

a) What third-party tests determine what is or isn't AI generated
b) Did the submitter follow the tests
c) Can the same tests be confirmed independently

This is a huge barrier. Human nature being what it is, few submitters would be willing to do those steps, fewer able to test and verify the declaration. Assuming that all self-certified AI submissions will be bad is wasteful; yet assuming that all self-certified AI submissions will be good is unreasonably risky. The recent `xz` and `npm` poisonings show that blanket trust in a system allows bad actors to do bad things.

So knowing the system is inherently flawed means that opportunities for abuse exist. I freely admit I don't have deep insight into "how AI works." But I do have pretty good insight into history, human nature, and and working with flawed processes. Pragmatic checks and balances on AI generation and use are needed, so maybe we can work together to build them.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

The God of Unintended Consequences is going to have a blast with this.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I, for one, welcome our mindless, soulless overlords. :cry:

View this comment - View article - View full comments