zxzax

45 ms·

421.
by zxzax 6y ago
>no, for explicitly damaging a business. politics and drama don't contribute to a productive work environment. I mean, that's the point of inclusivity, marginalized people just want to be able to do their jobs and avoid politic
422.
by zxzax 6y ago
I don't believe this is true. If it were, I don't think it would be so difficult to get companies to adopt policies against hate speech directed towards any group. This kind of thing hurts everyone, it's not restricted to any
423.
by zxzax 6y ago
>I've read the posts again and I think there is still a misunderstanding regarding the term SJW: I'm not using SJW as a term to dismiss something, as I already stated I use it to describe troublemaker/activist-types not no
424.
by zxzax 6y ago
I strongly disagree. Businesses do not exist in a vacuum. The second you hire one employee, it becomes about inclusivity. That's why every business has to follow the same employment laws. I'm sorry but I'm not interested in c
425.
by zxzax 6y ago
Telling employees there are other places they can go that are less hostile is still not a justification for having a hostile workplace. If everyone thought that way, nobody would ever tackle these problems. It's a mistake to try and eq
426.
by zxzax 6y ago
If people are telling you that they're leaving their job and salary because of those problems, then it probably is a big deal. Also, telling people who have voiced concerns to "just shut up" is not the way to foster healthy c
427.
by zxzax 6y ago
I'm very confused as to what you mean. Are you saying it's not possible for people who get paid above a certain threshold to be bullied and harassed at work? I strongly disagree with that.
428.
by zxzax 6y ago
>but it’s a long way down my list of priorities when logging on in the morning. You're missing the point, people who are marginalized don't have the luxury of putting it down the list of their priorities. That's why they&#
429.
by zxzax 6y ago
I know that but I'm just baffled that the text of the standard could be released at a point in time when nobody has succeeded at implementing it fully. That seems like it would almost guarantee that no one implements the standard as it
430.
by zxzax 6y ago
How is it possible that modules were released, if nobody has a working implementation? I was under the impression that proposals needed at least a proof-of-concept implementation from a sponsor. My exposure to this is searching the CMake tr
431.
by zxzax 6y ago
The pull request probably wouldn't be accepted because it's a major change and no other Mutter contributors are interested in reviewing such a patch or dealing with the (far-reaching) effects of it. GNOME is just the nonprofit ope
432.
by zxzax 6y ago
For apps that don't care about decorations, the toolkit is supposed to handle it. Inside Electron would be the safest place to implement a fallback for applications that don't care about decorations. That way you can be sure it wi
433.
by zxzax 6y ago
Writing lots of boilerplate is an opportunity to build new libraries, frameworks, code generators, and other tooling; use that as something extra you can share with your colleagues and sell to clients, or use it to build an open source port
434.
by zxzax 6y ago
What's next, will they prove how easy it is to break into kernel developers' houses and rob them? Or prove how easy it is to physically assault kernel developers by punching them in the face at conferences? Or prove how easy it is
435.
by zxzax 6y ago
You are responding to the same person who wrote that comment, with their own comment :)
436.
by zxzax 6y ago
I don't think GNOME adding SSD would really help, considering a lot of Electron apps tend to use CSD to integrate with the target platform [0] [1] [2] [3]. Likely those apps should be fixed to correctly use CSD when applicable on all p
437.
by zxzax 6y ago
For the curious, see this comment from the electron contributor on how to enable it: https://github.com/electron/electron/pull/26022#issuecomment...
438.
by zxzax 6y ago
Hmm, I think you're probably right, and I was overthinking it, thanks :)
439.
by zxzax 6y ago
I don't think I understand that analogy in terms of kernel code, can you give an example of what seat belts and bullet proof glass are in this context? Does that mean that previously in places where they only had CRCs, they added firew
440.
by zxzax 6y ago
So does that mean there is a significant difference between, for example, a malicious USB device versus a damaged USB device, from the kernel point of view? It seems that both would be sending incorrect data that the kernel should catch, ri
441.
by zxzax 6y ago
I'm not a kernel developer so I don't understand the details of this part: >People forget that only a few years ago have we decided that the kernel now has to protect userspace programs from malicious hardware. That's a ma
442.
by zxzax 6y ago
>keep all my code Huh? Grafana isn't your code, it's someone else's code that you'd be using. Unless I misinterpreted, and you are a Grafana contributor. If you are, you could dual license your contributions under AGP
443.
by zxzax 6y ago
That still doesn't make it monolithic. It's not exactly rare for an open source project to have no API spec. If you want to replace a part you just look at the code and then implement that API. If you ask me a lot of systemd is ac
444.
by zxzax 6y ago
What you're describing doesn't match the GNOME HIG. Buttons should actually be on the bottom for dialogs that require you to read through and then make a choice: https://developer.gnome.org/hig/stable/dia
445.
by zxzax 6y ago
The situation with Glade is not because of malicious intent, please don't assume bad faith. No GTK developers are happy that Glade has basically been deprecated in GTK4, it was a necessity due to technical reasons. Note that it's