I'm using an M3 Ultra w/ 512GB of RAM, using LMStudio and mostly mlx models. It runs massive models with reasonable tokens per second, though prompt processing can be slow. It handles long conversations fine so long as the KV cache hits. It's usable with opencode and crush, though my main motivation for getting it was specifically to be able to process personal data (e.g. emails) privately, and to experiment freely with abliterated models for security research. Also, I appreciate being able to run it off solar power.
I'm still trying to figure out a good solution for fast external storage, I only went for 1TB internal which doesn't go very far with models that have hundreds of billions of parameters.
You might consider then getting four 40gbps nVME enclosures, and then RAIDing multiple together (e.g. in a big stripe, you could get 160gbps throughput, only limited by # physical interfaces). Each slice could be +TBs.
Obviously increases your failure rate, but if you're constantly updating the same models (and not creating your own) you don't really need redundancy.
seriously, what's with people's love of this guy? besides politics, I have not seen anything that suggests engineering prowess from this guy, only "rust bad".
Skilled enough but the main use is as a news resource like this. The guy ion the blog would not have found out about this unless Lunduke posted about it.
People like his technical opinion because they like his politics. That’s the whole grift-influencer economy. If someone is good at one thing (and validates some of my views), then obviously he’s right about everything.
When people feel underrepresented to the point of being bullied they turn to any voice which seems to reflect even a tiny fraction of their frustrations.
There's a real mean spirit in open source lately and a lot of it seems to revolve around political views. There's become this idea that if you and I disagree on politics then it would be impossible for us to write quality software together. It's damaged a lot of good will and cohesion that used to exist within the open source software community.
This used to be about making free software to people so that they weren't abused by corporations. Now it's about pushing agendas and creating exclusion criteria. There's only one group in this scenario that benefits from this outcome.
If you don't like Lunduke then you should recognize the factors that give rise to people like him. Unless your solution is to completely eliminate anyone who disagrees with you then your apparent mindset only furthers the problem.
I wish we could put all this aside and just enjoy open source again.
My existence is not political. If someone doesn't think I should have rights and/or exist and/or thinks I am inferior because of who I am, then no, we cannot write quality software together.
If someone disagrees with me on tax, foreign relations, government services, defense, etc policy, sure, we can disagree and still work together.
What gives rise to people like Lunduke is not a simple thing, and something I don't think society fully understands.
In a way, "someone doesn't think I should have rights and/or exist and/or thinks I am inferior because of who I am" is pretty much the definition of (some kind of) politics. All sides play this game, e.g. many extremists these days argue that the "intolerant" shouldn't have rights or even exist by definition, but then the political football becomes who gets labeled as "intolerant" to begin with.
(And maybe it's true that those on opposite sides cannot work together on good software, but that's easily addressed since all FLOSS licenses include the right to fork and merge changes.)
Not agreeing with a particular description or categorization of you is not the same as thinking that you don't exist and not agreeing that you should have certain non-universal rights based on that categorization or that you should be able to force others in agreeing with your views isn't the same as thinking that you shouldn't have rights period.
When people believe "they are product", bully Open Source developers for not following their demands and got expected response than entities appear that validate their wrongs for views (money).
Lunduke spreads misinformation. That's anti Open Source, anti community.
You can use Xephyr or Xnest to sandbox an untrusted or insecure application within its own X11 instance. This gives you the exact same kind of security property that Wayland happens to enforce out of the box for its clients, except that it need not apply to basic desktop components such as the window manager or the desktop panel. You don't even need Xlibre or anything, this stuff has been around for ages. It's not rocket surgery!
Xephyr or Xnest sandbox break screensharing, global shortkeys.
You've just confirmed obvious. No way to improve security without breaking changes. And you demand mostly nontechnical users to blacklist applications. That's a recipe for disaster.
> Once you enable XLibre namespaces filtering it breaks screensharing, global hotkeys. Obviously. It is breaking change.
Ah, the classic moving of goalposts.
I'll bite: It is far from impossible, and already solved elsewhere: Most applications do not need such functionality.
For those that do, provide mechanisms to request and facilitate access to such functionality when needed. Like portals do for other functionality. And a wrapper to request automatically for e.g. old binaries without source.
API is contract. API grants access to screen content, key presses. Users blame Wayland for breaking this contract. Both Wayland and XLibre namespaces brake it. Lunduke mob unable to reason, claims "moving goalposts". Lunduke mob claims improving security is not needed. Lunduke mod wants Linux desktop to be malware can. They claim security improvements for everyone (like defaults on Android) is corporations taking away their freedom. Lunduke mob unable to comprehend Wayland started by XOrg developers who knew X11 flaws. They unable to be thankful for people bringing security to modern expectations.
Dont present our hypothesis as a hard fact. I actually think it is completely false. Not only I was never interested in his political opinions, and followed him because of his humoristic takes "Linux sucks", and not about Rust or whatever; I actually never encountered a single video before joining his "lunduke journal" where his right-wing views would be visible.
He has made funny videos, it was fun to watch. Its kinda hard to enjoy them now after learning he s dumb as a rock and justifies killings if you are of tje wrong nationality
The maker of the provocative "Linux sucks" series is a bit of a troll.
He's made videos on technical projects he doesn't understand (or care about) and just mocks them if they don't gel with him.
As far as I can tell he doesn't really care, or if he thinks he does - his actions aren't translating well.
How do I know? As a FOSS developer myself with a decade plus public history I also happen to know a few people running prominent FOSS projects.
He's burned bridges for no good reason. He doesn't care.
I have no idea who he is, never heard of him. You shall not judge a book by its cover but .. he is making it hard. His video titles are:
* Devuan: The Non-Woke Debian Linux Fork (Without Systemd)
* NeoFetch But in Rust and More Gay
* Chimera Linux is "Here to Further Woke Agenda by Turning Free Software Gay"
* Are Jews the Cause of DEI in Big Tech?
Yeah .. I did not watch a single video of his. But just from a short few seconds It's not anything I want to invest time in to see if he has a point or not. Life is too short.
Whatever I might agree or disagree with, this is annoying to look at, but his stuff keeps coming up in my YouTube feed. Even it looks slightly interesting, I know it will be some rant involved about a thing not related to technology, but some developer's personal opinions on non-tech ideas. I get it - people are horrible! Sheesh!
FWIW, probably not much, he said he had a Jewish background ... in, like, the one video I watched and eventually gave up on.
what's especially strange to me is that in the more distant past, he was a pretty normal guy - at least as normal as any other linux user. Heck, he had a super great podcast (Linux Action Show).
Something changed in the 2014ish time-frame when it got more and more politically extreme.
It won't do anything of the sort. It will allow him to make 200 videos complaining about it, get a load of ad-revenue and sell subscribestar memberships.
The best thing to do with people like Lunduke is ignore them.
While I believe Lunduke is a dishonest actor, he is tapping into something.
There are many people in and around tech that disagree with the direction. They want to pushing back against mega corporations, government surveillance etc. They see CoC, Woke as part of that corporate/government apparatus.
You can watch someone like Sam Bent's or Mental Outlaws YouTube channel and you will start to understand that attitude.
> It's always horrible when your niche get poisoned by this rhetoric.
Tech like a lot of areas of life has been hyper politicised. The best thing you can do is not to play the game at all.
Lunduke is a grifter and just generally a bit of an idiot.
e.g. I remember he once claimed Google was censoring him when he was de-listed from search, this was way back in 2009. His site had a malicious iframe because the PHP CMS he was using had been compromised.
His politics are kinda irrelevant to me. There are people who are Agorist/Libertarian/Conservative tech influencers online that do decent and informative content e.g. Sam Bent.
Yes. I created the account because someone asked what the problem was with Lunduke and I had something to say. I've been aware of Lunduke for quite a while and he has always come off a clown.
The fact is that hasn't actually given much to the community and has been a drama, pretty much since his appearance in Linux land. People used to dislike him then and wanted him gone and this was well before the current culture war nonsense that is often seen on YouTube, Twitter and backwaters like Rumble.
> I'd suggest going out for a walk.
I go out for an hour walk in the countryside every lunch time. I am not sure what my exercise routine has got to do with criticising a long time troll and grifter.
* Gun ownership should be much more tightly regulated in the US.
* Requiring 3D printers to block production of firearms is worse than useless.
How would that even work from a technological perspective? If it did work, why would 3d printer jailbreaks not be the immediate result? I would use jailbroken firmware on principal.
I hard disagree on the tightly regulated stance. We are in the middle of a facist coup and you want to disarm every one? I have to question your motives, and I wonder if you have ever read a history book.
I think Roosevelt had it right when he said talk soflty and carry a big stick.
There's a huge spectrum between "nobody should ever own any gun" and "your local corner store should have an 'assault rifle and two sixpacks of beer' combo special".
I completely your point, but unless you're willing to actually start a civil war they aren't going to be very helpful. They are, at best, a mild deterrent against indiscriminate use of lethal force.
At the same time the US is still the only country in the world which regularly sees school shootings. This was the case before Trump, and I see no reason to believe it'll be any different after Trump.
I agree that the timing probably isn't the best right now, but after fixing the completely broken democratic system gun control should probably be placed somewhere near the top of the agenda.
It seems pretty clear that the populace is not going to use guns to oppose the fascists. Since that was a major (if not the most important) reason for the second amendment, it appears vestigial.
Also, as others rightly pointed out "much more tightly regulated" ≠ "banned entirely".
None of the points or sentiment I have raised here are new in anyway. There are many millions of people who feel the same as I do.
Why does wanting to own a tool for self defense make "us people" the reason for this mess?
I'm pretty certain this mess is due to the on going class war and our racist president that suffers from early onset dementia. Rome is on fire, but i had nothing to do with it.
So does the one it's in reply to. But you skipped that one to complain about this one.
It's absurd that anyone could pretend to believe that more people having guns is a "deterrent" mild or otherwise to lethal use of force? In every interview about why american cops shoot and kill orders of magnitude more people than most civilized countries, americans always argue it's because their citizenry is armed so the police need to be prepared to make life or death decisions in a split second at every moment on the job.
Nobody suggested that more guns were a solution to anything.
Guns have been more accessible and readily available for the entire history of the United States. School shootings are a relatively new development.
Access to and availability of guns has been more greatly restricted over that time. With virtually no impact.
Perhaps the desperation and miserable mental health of our population are bigger factors?
Every country you would point to likely has better access to healthcare, education, and much better social safety net than the US. As well as law enforcement and prison systems less focused on restitution/justice and more focused on education and rehabilitation. Other countries also see less recidivism and lower violent crime rates in general.
All available evidence indicates we should be spending much less time and energy focusing on guns and far more focusing on the failures and motivations of our government.
> They are, at best, a mild deterrent against indiscriminate use of lethal force.
Is a quote from a sibiling comment to the one I replied to.
It seems that at the very least an extraordinarily loud minority of americans believe that arming the general population should somehow result in fewer gun deaths. On the big social media platforms, the larger news networks, and right here on HN, I am always surprised that such an obviously incorrect idea can be so pervasive.
> All available evidence indicates we should be spending much less time and energy focusing on guns and far more focusing on the failures and motivations of our government.
No, it doesn't. You can't just assert that because it's what you think. Societal issues do play a part, but just as you need oxygen and fuel for a fire, removing either one stops the flames. So if changing the individual minds and morals of seemingly half your country seems easier than enacting legislation restricting access to guns... well I don't think you should hold your breath.
You're misquoting me. That was in the context of a hostile government, not guns in general for civilian-against-civilian "self-defense".
Also, the "at best" and mild" are quite important there. I believe that armed civilians might prevent someone like the National Guard from firing on groups of protestors when it gets hairy, out of fear of being shot in response. They aren't suicidal: you don't escalate when you are in a disadvantaged position!
> There's always an Arquillian Battle Cruiser, or a Corillian Death Ray, or an intergalactic plague that is about to wipe out all life on this miserable little planet, and the only way these people can get on with their happy lives is that they DO NOT KNOW ABOUT IT!
Everybody deserves the respect of being called by their preferred name. Even children know this. If your name is Pat, and somebody insists on calling you Frank instead, they are just an asshole.
This has nothing to do with ideology. It's just basic politeness.
I'm still trying to figure out a good solution for fast external storage, I only went for 1TB internal which doesn't go very far with models that have hundreds of billions of parameters.
reply