#i think it's so fascinating

[letterlock]

disclaimer: it is a widely verified fact that i am a fool, please adjust any expectations of my accuracy thereafter

my understanding is slightly different:

stability refers to the relative mutability of the underlying code within a distribution (stable as in unchanging). Debian is stable as in unchanging, Arch is unstable as in highly changing.

with more of this stability, there often follows an amount of stability in a more traditional sense (stable as in unfailing). this is, however, only correlated because releases are fewer and farther between, so hacks, workarounds, and code adaptations have time to be developed for bugs that are discovered before a release is locked for changes.

this distinction is important because instability (as in failing) and insecurity in the codebase will, as a rule, also not be changed. so potential security vulnerabilities can even be allowed to stick around, unless they are of a certain level, and you better believe there are lots of places where a stable (as in unchanging) distro will have ux breaking bugs.

this leads to another place where it's easy to conflate these two kinds of stability - the reason stable (as in unchanging) distros like Debian have that philosophy is because it provides a constantly known quantity which increases the experience of stability (as in unfailing-ness). if you don't change the code, you can't introduce new bugs, especially in weird, seemingly unrelated places that make them hard to track down.

so it's a trade off. theoretically, a purely stable (as in unchanging) distro would actually sacrifice some security (if it didn't develop security patches), to create the most reliable UX possible (if it works today, it'll work tomorrow). this is great for systems that need to be reliable above all else, especially when they're not connected to a network. (lab equipment/computers, for example)

on the other hand an unstable (as in highly changing) distro would sacrifice a consistent and reliable experience for the newest features and fixes. this would, weirdly, in theory, be more secure, because bugs would get fixes as they were discovered and fixed in real time.

in real life, there are no distros that are ideologically pure in regards to their stability (unchanging-ness). Debian pushes security updates and rolling release distros have been known to hold back or roll back changes that broke things too bad. additionally, the theory of stability (unchanging-ness) doesn't always translate to reality. Arch systems break in fantastic and stupefying ways that don't get official fixes for a long time (despite what every Arch user claims. source: am Arch user, have had to reinstall because of weird esoteric interactions between seemingly unrelated packages), Debian systems have UX bugs that render certain programs basically unusable, making the stability of the system moot.

hope this makes sense. and I hope it's mostly accurate. this is all off the dome on my phone at work, so yeah, see above disclaimer. please anyone feel free to correct me

A lot of people seem to misunderstand what "stability" (in term of Linux distros) means.

It's not about your system beeing reliable and not breaking/crashing due to bugs. Stable simply means "no updates that introduce breaking changes" (as in breaking compatibility, not as in destroying stuff).

An unstable distro can still be reliable (e.g. OpenSUSE tumbleweed due to great testing) and a stable distro may move so slowly that things start to cause trouble due to old age (for example only shipping end-of-life versions of certain libraries that some software vendors indirectly stop supporting it or as sysadmin not beeing able to roll out a python script because some systems still have only versions of python available that are EOL).

I see this kind of misunderstanding not just here on Tumblr, but everywhere in the industry.

[sunroseofthewood]

Adolin Kholin: Shardbearer, Prince, Murderer.

[mynnthia]

was talking with a friend about how some of dunmeshi fаndom misunderstands kabru's initial feelings towards laios.

to sum up kabru's situation via a self-contained modernized metaphor:

kabru is like a guy who lost his entire family in a highly traumatic car accident. years later he joins a discord server and takes note of laios, another server member who seems interesting, so they start chatting. then laios reveals his special interest and favorite movie of all time is David Cronenberg's Crash (1996), and invites kabru to go watch a demolition derby with him

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Dog Meshi.

[eydilily]

would you bite the hand that feeds you?

[puppppppppy]

who is your favorite AA character? 👁️👁️

ziska… I hope capcom brings her back someday

[tawnysoup]

the fritter (frin critter)

[umblrspectrum]

getting in that spooky spirit

[dansemacabre]

(tw unreality!)

ayo new theory just dropped and bad news! the implications are cosmically horrifying

in the bulletin from time baby in book of bill, he says bill is a “danger to narrativity”, and that he risks the fourth wall. this kept bothering me. why reference the fourth wall here? why have time baby reference it? yeah the heaven page and shit is a bit meta, but thats just how bill talks, right? Well i was a fool

when you put “seven eyes” into the lost files site, this warning pops up from the oracle question mark? from journal three:

the therapese at the bottom translates to “set coords for dimension: r34lity”.

and putting r34lity into the website gives us this image:

the text below it reads they found a new home. those are “real” fucking images. the henchmaniacs are in our “reality”. the cryptids page might not have been a goof goof bit- they were “real”. (“real” meaning our reality in the book of bill sense of it but still our reality. is that tracking.)

none of the rest of the cast actually references us as a specific audience, or the fandom, or acts like we know them at all. the cast addresses everything they write to a mystery “reader” who needs to be saved from the book’s influence.

meanwhile, in the book of bill:

because bill’s not talking to a mystery “reader” who’s reading this book.

bill fucking sees us.

bill sees reality. REALITY reality. like this earth the one with alex hirsch and gravity falls the show and tiktok and shit. book of bill is a book in our reality for us the reader. (ie. there’s a reference to “they both reached for the gun” if you put gun in the website, which would only make sense if bill was sentient in this “reality” right now.) and someone is trying to get here to hide from him. maybe they’re already here.

[koipepo]

That omake of little Kabru not being able to show off his howetown sweets because of Misril gets to me a lot so...

Here's a happier Kabru (and Lairu)

[for-those-who-wait]

Discovering that crocs have modes

[spiders-and-swords]

Cheers for more unrendered art

[demaparbat-hp]

Zuko's eyes watered against his will when the ghost of a woman he did not know smiled at him like he was her child.

Zuko decided right there and then that maybe, just maybe, this too was something he came to find.

Ghost-Mother takes a look into Zuko's soul in For the Spirits Chapter IX: A Rider Alone.

More than a stranded soul, Kya holds all the love of the Old Tribe and the means to calm a coming tempest. Zuko won't ever forget her.

(He won't be allowed to.)

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Who is this sassy lost child?

[First] Prev <–-> Next

[marciaillust]

I added some colours to her :)

[airoarts]

"yellowfang? what are you doing in bluestars den? well its none of my business" -fireheart, probably

[ID: a digital painting of Bluestar and Yellowfang, two battle-scarred gray cats, from Warrior Cats. They are cuddling in loaf positions in a den with sunlight streaming in, looking towards the entrance with slight smirks. The image is drawn in a semi-realistic art style with soft colors and shading. End ID]