deong

joined 1 year ago
[–] deong@lemmy.world 24 points 11 months ago

As an internal implementation detail, it's fine and pretty standard. Exposing it to the end user so that they have to know whatever janky-ass domain and capitalization you picked to run your application is braindead.

[–] deong@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago (6 children)

Exactly. Everyone complains about ad tech and enshittification until you point them to the conveniently located button that lets them pay for the service...

[–] deong@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I agree with you. There's nothing wrong with not knowing how to do something. We all start basically every endeavor not knowing how to do it. My complaint is specifically with people who march into that thing they haven't learned yet with an attitude of "and you're all wrong and stupid for not fixing it for me".

[–] deong@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Well, we're here on a web site discussing it, and the top two recommendations are "build one yourself from parts" and "buy a used one in cash".

Seems to me that it's the very definition of unrealistic if the real world has almost no examples that do it.

[–] deong@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Or just use their built in sync and sign in one time, and all your addons will be installed and enabled for you.

If your argument boils down to "none of the browsers are exactly pre-configured for me, one of the 7 billion not special people on the planet", I’m not sure there’s a productive conversation to be had here.

[–] deong@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I’m not saying you shouldn’t want companies to obey the laws. I’m specifically responding to the idea of "if your business relies on companies breaking the law, you have bigger problems". The idea that you’ll dramatically tear apart and rebuild your supply chain literally every week as one company or another is sued for something that doesn’t concern you is what’s naive. Even just looking at patents, every company that writes software is a time bomb, because there are hundreds of thousands of bullshit patents that cover extremely broad and obvious ideas. This can’t be your problem, or you’ll never actually get around to doing the thing your company does.

[–] deong@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If your livelihood depends on a company breaking the law, you’ve got other issues.

That's a pretty naive view of the world. If I buy 50,000 Android devices to support my company's field sales operation, I'm not going to collect them all and put them in a trash compactor just because Oracle decides to pick a copyright fight with Google. If you work for any large-ish company, your employer is probably engaged in dozens of active lawsuits right now. That's just how the world works.

[–] deong@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The userland differences are not too great, but I would assume a kernel module as significant as a modern GPU driver is pretty deeply tied to Linux's kernel internals.

[–] deong@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

WoW still runs great under Wine.

[–] deong@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think the main issue with Arch comes if you try to use it like Debian Stable. Like, if you don't run pacman -Syu for a year, you probably won't have a bootable system the next time you try. How about six months? My guess is you'd still be stuck fixing shit. Where is the safe "X" in "as long as I update every X, I'll be fine?" Who knows. That's not a very well-defined problem.

I sort of understand the issue here. I use Arch because I'm picky about system things, and it seems to require going against the fewest strongly held platform opinions in order to get it the way I want it. In an ideal world, I'd get it set up that way and not need to touch it very much afterwards. Arch requires frequent touches. Fortunately, almost none of them require any real mental energy, and I'm willing to do the occasional bit of "real work" if needed to keep it going, but that's a trade-off that may be more painful for some than others.

[–] deong@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I've been saying for a while now that the actual test should be that you miss a couple. If you can look at a this 4 nanometer picture of what is either a bird, a sofa, or the titanic, and correctly tell me if it has part of one pedal from a bicycle in it, you're a robot.

view more: next ›