catdog

35 ms·

331.
by catdog 10y ago
> Bit-rot means that X isn't as well-suited to today's environment as we'd like, but I'm sure that some things in X that are regarded as mistakes now were trumpeted as great advancements when they were introduced. May
332.
by catdog 10y ago
> This is classic second-system thinking. 'This time we'll do everything right! This time we'll write it without any bugs!' It's not only about things done wrong but also about X11 not fitting very well into toda
333.
by catdog 10y ago
> Whatsapp was not simple. Maybe not 1-2 weekends simple but compared to 18 billion dollars the technical aspect is rather insignificant. It's a chat client hugely leveraging existing technology (XMPP, at least in the beginning), no
334.
by catdog 10y ago
Most other manufacturers in contrast to Apple do not only sell these overpriced "flagship devices" which few people really need these days but also offer devices in a more reasonable price range. The biggest problem is that others
335.
by catdog 10y ago
It still protects from passive wiretapping which is strictly better than no encryption at all. It's a shame browsers are treating it way worse.
336.
by catdog 10y ago
It's adding a very complex and complicated machine (a computer) which also interacts with other very complex and complicated machines all over the world to items which are usually very straightforward and "simply work". To pr
337.
by catdog 10y ago
Indeed it's all about improving general preparedness again. Civil protection received very little attention in Germany since the Cold War ended and the big, evil enemy who could attack at any time was gone. The government now presented
338.
by catdog 10y ago
> DRM exists to counter piracy. That's wrong. DRM ensures that piracy provides a better experience because it simply works under any circumstance.
339.
by catdog 10y ago
Sure nothing is perfect and I did not say that we shouldn't improve sandboxing but I do not think that moving everything into the browser is the better alternative. The problem doesn't get easier only because it's in the brow
340.
by catdog 10y ago
Most importantly, as a user, don't install programs which can't be trusted because sandboxing is no magic bullet and will never be. In addition to that better redirect the work that would go into these browser features to improve
341.
by catdog 10y ago
Websites with hardware access? what could possibly go wrong? Browsers already are a overly complex security nightmare. Moreover the recent example of this stupid but rather simple battery API has shown us several, some more and some less ob
342.
by catdog 10y ago
> Most of it seems completely misguided if you ask me. I'm no fan of all the tracking stuff, but lets be real. Everyone in here with an iPhone or an Android phone has the same experience yet i don't see them complaining that th
343.
by catdog 10y ago
youtube-dl [1] can handle it, you can use it together with mpv [2] to directly play the video. [1] https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/ [2] https://mpv.io/
344.
by catdog 10y ago
The Flat Earth Society has members all around the globe.
345.
by catdog 10y ago
> Sure, disabling JavaScript will improve pageloads. However, are you suggesting clicking a link and waiting for an entirely new page to load is good UX? If done right there is not much wasted and there is not much to wait for as most of
346.
by catdog 10y ago
> I think one of the biggest problems with many free and open source projects is that they don't have viable business plans. This is fine if what you are hoping to get out of your project is a hobby. But it's not fine when take
347.
by catdog 10y ago
> Personally, I am not really of the opinion that all software must inherently be free, but there is a significant problem. It seems pretty clear to me that some software must be free and I think we should have laws in place to ensure it
348.
by catdog 10y ago
> And second, ignoring the fact that non-free software (mostly) got us where we are today in terms of progress. Did this progress happen because or despite it is/was non-free? Would there be less progress with free software? I don&#
349.
by catdog 10y ago
I think the GPL can be seen as a clever law hack (in the sense of creatively using something in ways not originally intended). In this case not to enforce restrictions in usage but to actually enforce the opposite.
350.
by catdog 10y ago
It depends onto what "as you wish" is applied here. You may >>distribute<< it to whom you wish, when you wish and under the conditions you wish. What you can not do as you wish is to dictate further restrictions to the
351.
by catdog 10y ago
> I can't go propose a change to the Linux kernel unless Linus likes it. I could maintain my own fork, but it would consume nearly all of my free time. But if that change is not that big or fundamental you can still apply a patch wi
352.
by catdog 10y ago
> Who cares about source code? Not most users. Mot users probably don't know that it's something to care about. > There's certainly a net benefit in distributing software with free access to source code so it can be mod
353.
by catdog 10y ago
On the other side of the medal LLVM/clang more or less only exists because RMS for a very long time vetoed against a plugin framework in gcc in fear of non-free ones. One could say he took the project hostage for political means. I thi
354.
by catdog 10y ago
Maybe, but this (often buggy) closed source stuff and not having a proper data sheet causes a lot of trouble for projects creating these nice firmwares (micropython, nodemcu, …) which people tend to use.
355.
by catdog 10y ago
3,3V is a pretty common if not prevalent voltage level with this type of embedded Hardware, nothing weird. Also these USB to Serial converters are pretty common.
356.
by catdog 10y ago
Sure it's standardized enough to generally work but to my knowledge only RFC1459 is widely seen as authoritative. The protocol evolved quite a bit over the years but a lot of the extensions covered (and maybe not covered) by those late
357.
by catdog 10y ago
> XMPP is useless for multiple devices: there's no way to receive messages on both (some servers will deliberately violate the spec here because the spec is stupid) XEP-0280: Message Carbons and there was that priority thing before.
358.
by catdog 10y ago
IRC originates from a time where nobody was thinking about multiple devices, or e.g. not encoding in ASCII. Speaking of nonstandard: There seems to be no canonical specification of IRC itself. Nevertheless it's really not that bad in p
359.
by catdog 10y ago
It's not only optional, it does nothing by default. What was introduced into python is a standardized way to do type annotations. It consists mostly of a new standard library module and as far as i know it doesn't even introduce c