ISometimesAdmin
Hey, I maintain a highly popular (if niche) FOSS library. Where the fuck is my big tech paycheck where they bribe me into integrating with their product?
/s Silly take IMO, relies on cherry-picking popular FOSS projects where you can see "the influence" of big tech, AND then No True Scotsman your way into saying that they're not allowed to participate in the development/influence of FOSS because... checks notes they're the ones funding the project/putting money in front of otherwise unpaid volunteers?
If you end up coming up with a better scheme for things that has the actual practical effect of compensating devs appropriately (yes, that means at current market rates or better) for their work, then please let us know so we can switch to doing that immediately. I will literally do anything you suggest if it would achieve that end.
No, it absolutely wasn't, as can testify anyone who actually had to work with it: https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/the-death-of-adobes-flash-is-lingering-not-sudden/
There are lots of good reasons to get rid of Flash. Browser makers say it's a top sore spot for security, performance and shorter battery life.
https://tedium.co/2021/01/01/adobe-flash-demise-history/
Usability means a few things in this context—simplicity, ease of use, convention, and accessibility. Flash was none of those things. It took the blank-canvas approach to creativity—which was great for the artists and illustrators that originally made up its target audience, but morphed into numerous other forms that it wasn’t necessarily designed for. It fell into overuse and quickly became abused by others.
I do think it sped up the demise of Flash on the web considerably.
That's unironically an innovation right there
Yeah the headline is stupid bait.
They already built it. They're trying to contribute the change upstream.
Which is technically "requesting higher core support", but is a very obnoxious way to phrase it.
That's only for a single service, not really what OP seems to be asking for
Fuck's sake, people. Gitlab already didn't allow search unless you were logged in.
This ain't enshittification.
Fully agreed, hence the "most" :^)
Others beat me to the punch on saying this is just worse WebAuthN, but there are some specific flaws that boil down to saying that this whole thing is, at best, totally inconsiderate of real attack vectors such as phishing
Huh? What does this even mean? How can you avoid sharing your email and replace it with a sign, if they need to check it against their database of... Emails?
Ah excellent. Someone can just look at a security camera or just snap a photo over your shoulder and steal your sign then. Because your proposal sure doesn't note any way that these are 1-time use only. And if they were, this sounds like an awfully inconvenient way of receiving a temporary number (which sites usually only ever do as a cheap/bad 2FA method/password resets)
Oh boy, better make sure to not get phished! Or that the link is 1 time use! Or that you aren't being victimized by a MITM attack and getting it intercepted immediately!