I think it’s possible that the filesystem ran out of inodes, so even though there is space on disk, there is no space in the filesystem metadata to store new files.

Now, I don’t know off the top of my head how to check this, but I assume the answer is on the internet somewhere (am on phone and can’t help much more than this, sorry)

if you’re using windows and expect any privacy at all […] throw that notion out the window

Correct. And the same is true even if you are using linux, macOS, android, or a butterfly to manipulate bits to send a message through the internet.

Because if your message ends up on the screen of a windows user, it’s also going to be eaten by AI.

And forget the notion of “anything you post on the internet is forever”, this is also true for private and encrypted comms now. At least as long as they can be decrypted by your recipient, if they use windows.

You want privacy and use linux? Well, that’s no longer enough. You now also need to make sure that none of your communications include a (current or future) windows user as they get spyware by default in their system.

Well maybe not quite by default, yet

They are yeah, but in that scenario you would also not have a window decoration with a close button, so I assumed the OP meant maximized :P

Reread the OP. They say:

not on GNOME, because you have a panel at the top

And

when usign GTK apps on those [non-GNOME] desktops

So you would not “access the controls above the app”, because having controls above the app is not covered by this scenario.

The scenario is:

1. You don’t have a top panel
2. You have a maximized GTK app

Which makes the close button be in the corner of the screen, but without actually extending to it.

On topic: never knew this was a problem, guess I got spoiled by the Qt environment

I thought mint was switching to a debian base but it looks like I am mistaken. While LMDE exists, it’s still not the default.

Got the feeling that’s probably gonna change soonish, we’ll see.

I don’t know about color profile data, but I can vouch for the EDID potentially being totally wrong sometimes on even basic data like physical size or even logical size (number of pixels).

As for the why, I don’t know, but following Occam’s razor I would guess that it’s cheaper when you just don’t care and leave it as somebody else’s problem.

Since my previous example didn't really have return value, I am changing it slightly. So if I'm reading your suggestion of "rewriting that in 3 lines and a single nested scope followed by a single return", I think you mean it like this?

int retval = 0;

// precondition checks:
if (!p1) retval = -ERROR1;
if (p2) retval = -ERROR2;
if (!p3 && p4) retval = -ERROR3;

// business logic:
if (p1 && !p2 && (p3 || !p4))
{
    retval = 42;
}

// or perhaps would you prefer the business logic check be like this?
if (retval != -ERROR1 && retval != -ERROR2 && retval != -ERROR3)
{
    retval = 42;
}

// or perhaps you'd split the business logic predicate like this? (Assuming the predicates only have a value of 0 or 1)
int ok = p1;
ok &= !p2;
ok &= p3 || !p4;
if (ok)
{
    retval = 42;
}

return retval;

as opposed to this?

// precondition checks:
if(!p1) return -ERROR1;
if(p2) return -ERROR2;
if(!p3 && p4) return -ERROR3;

// business logic:
return 42;

Using a retval has the exact problem that you want to avoid: at the point where we do return retval, we have no idea how retval was manipulated, or if it was set multiple times by different branches. It's mutable state inside the function, so any line from when the variable is defined to when return retval is hit must now be examined to know why retval has the value that it has.

Not to mention that the business logic then needs to be guarded with some predicate, because we can't early return. And if you need to add another precondition check, you need to add another (but inverted) predicate to the business logic check.

You also mentioned resource leaks, and I find that a more compelling argument for having only a single return. Readability and understandability (both of which directly correlate to maintainability) are undeniably better with early returns. But if you hit an early return after you have allocated resources, you have a resource leak.

Still, there are better solutions to the resource leak problem than to clobber your functions into an unreadable mess. Here's a couple options I can think of.

1. Don't: allow early returns only before allocating resources via a code standard. Allows many of the benfits of early returns, but could be confusing due to using both early returns and a retval in the business logic
2. If your language supports it, use RAII
3. If your language supports it, use defer
4. You can always write a cleanup function

Example of option 1

// precondition checks
if(!p1) return -ERROR1;
if(p2) return -ERROR2;
if(!p3 && p4) return -ERROR3;

void* pResource = allocResource();
int retval = 0;

// ...
// some business logic, no return allowed
// ...

freeResource(pResource);
return retval; // no leaks

Example of option 2

// same precondition checks with early returns, won't repeat them for brevity

auto Resource = allocResource();

// ...
// some business logic, return allowed, the destructor of Resource will be called when it goes out of scope, freeing the resources. No leaks
// ...

return 42;

Example of option 3

// precondition checks

void* pResource = allocResource();
defer freeResource(pResource);

// ...
// some business logic, return allowed, deferred statements will be executed before return. No leaks
// ...

return 42;

Example of option 4

int freeAndReturn(void* pResource, const int retval)
{
    freeResource(pResource);
    return retval;
}

int doWork()
{
    // precondition checks

    void* pResource = allocResource();

    // ...
    // some business logic, return allowed only in the same form as the following line
    // ...

    return freeAndReturn(pResource, 42);
}

Bad advice. Early return is way easier to parse and comprehend.

if (p1)
{
    if(!p2)
    {
        if(p3 || !p4)
        {
            *pOut = 10;
        }
    }
}

vs

if(!p1) return;
if(p2) return;
if(!p3 && p4) return;

*pOut = 10;

Early out makes the error conditions explicit, which is what one is interested in 90% of the time. After the last if you know that all of the above conditions are false, so you don’t need to keep them in your head.

And this is just a silly example with 3 predicates, imagine how a full function with lots of state looks. You would need to keep the entire decision tree in your head at all times. That’s the opposite of maintainable.

Yah, and phoronix is usually a very to-the-point website. But I still found it funny :)

Hey don’t feel bad buddy, at least you tried

It absolutely is a good reason, and I did to escape the heat.

You clearly have never tried flashing a microcontroller from a windows host. Have to scour the internet for some random ass driver to install.

No such thing in Linux.

Or you might never have tried using some random Ethernet usb adapter where windows doesn’t quite know what to do, if it doesn’t have an alternative connection to try and automatically download the drivers (not always finding them)