I would suggest the current system fails to efficiently choose (as you have to align multiple pathways, like updates, "manual" installs, adding new packages), and so effectively there's only the illusion of choice. Switching instead to a queue not only means that there's time for QA/security scans, but it's much easier to make the choice to speed up than slow down.

Because that's what they're seeing? If only a small fraction of submissions can use the tool correctly, that's on the tool.

But you know beforehand how much you need. We can measure and make predictions with accuracy.

I think based on what I think is the author's comments here "Flatpak on top of immutable distros are the future of Linux"? Given that context, I can see how the author produced the text.

As an aussie, I'd say instant is never good, it's the minimum acceptable coffee. If your coffee is worst than instant (yes, you LAX, how do you make coffee taste like literal dirt water!), then you should learn to make coffee properly!

The checksums are verified automatically, based on a key bootstrapped by the original install (which could, though likely not done, be verified by other means). As happened with xz, you either get everyone or no-one.

I'm not sure how someone is supposed to use attestations if PyPI refuses to support the forge they use? I'm not sure how this prevents a package getting maliciously uploaded via Github Actions? To me, this is going to lead to another bincode incident, because it conflates trust in the maintainer with trust in the platform.

Is it 99% of users? Of the linux (desktop/laptop) users I know, the majority use X-forwarding over ssh at least occasionally, while non-linux (desktop/laptop) also use X-forwarding (this is in an academic context), so while this may be an improvement for a subset of linux (desktop/laptop) users, across the whole linux user base (excluding both Android, which does not use wayland, and embedded, which I understand does use wayland), it's not.

I don't think I have used X-forwarding in the last 10 years unless for checking whether it's still there. Most of the time, it was, and running a browser even on a nearby machine was not a pleasant experience. Running Emacs was less bad, but the only things that actually worked well were probably xlogo and xload.

X-forwarding isn't used nearly enough to justify it having to be used all the time.

It does do a fair amount of filtering of submissions, and it's a long term archive (e.g. for the next 100+ years). I suspect both (but with the former dominating) are the issue.

Just put out a torrent and people of the sort at r/DataHoarder will keep it alive for longer than bureaucrats.

No, it's to be a pre-print server. If someone doesn't know what that means, then they shouldn't be using arXiv.

everyone has a first time they see a thing and don't yet know what it is.

Using a brand as a filter where you have to already know what it means to get it is exactly the opposite of what it's supposed to achieve.

Consider the most exclusive (successful) brands that exist. Even there, where exclusivity is a brand goal, none of them have this property of being obscure on first contact.

You usually get introduced to it by your academic supervisor or collaborators as a masters or PhD student. If you're a solo researcher who has made a significant contribution on the frontier of science, I'm sure you'll be able to understand how Arxiv works as well. Because I assume you have had some conversations with other experts in the field. If you're a full on autodidact with no contact to any other researchers in the field, well, maybe it's better if you chat with some other people in that field.

Its reasonable to have a tradeoff here to avoid cranks and now AI psychosis slop. You can still post on research gate and academia.edu or you own github page or webhosting.