tbh I've been saved by VS Code ignoring a fat fingering of the Insert key by mistake far more times than I've actually wanted it to work as intended.
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 74
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 74
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
It's Microsoft, intrusion of standards is their entire M.O.
It's the "extend" in "embrace, extend, extinguish".
Rythmbox. Syncs to my iPod Classic.
Thank you for letting me know about this.
I use a few apps from the SimpleMobileTools suite. They aren't full FOSS, they have basic and pro versions where the basic version is GPL3 and the proprietary extended features cost a few bucks. The basic FOSS tools are still decent, if barebones.
The suite includes:
- a calculator
- a phone dialer
- a music player
- a calendar
- a photo gallery (with basic editor)
- an audio recorder
- a flashlight
- a clock
- an app launcher
- an SMS messenger
- a camera
- a keyboard
- a note taker
- a file manager
- a contact book
- a simple painting canvas
I use the gallery and file manager the most. Though admittedly I threw a couple bucks their way for the proprietary extensions. It's not FOSS, but if it was going to be proprietary, I think it's one of the fairest deals in software these days. Better than another bloody subscription model, or holding the ad-free experience hostage behind a paywall.
IANAL and I don't have the actual court papers, but is seems to me they were violating GPLv2 Section 6.
Essentially, what this section says is that if you distribute a chunk of software (in this case, the firmware embedded in a smart TV) that in its compiled form contains part or all of a software library covered by this license (in this case, Busybox, which is a bundle of common shell utilities you use every day in a Linux terminal, compacted into one binary to fit onto embedded systems), you have to do one of these four things:
- Package the source code of the GPL'd library with the distribution itself. If your executable contains a version of it modified by you, those modifications must be in the source. In this case this would require putting the raw source code for Busybox on the TV itself in a place the user could access it, or perhaps bundling a flash drive with the source code on it with the TV.
- Include a written offer to send the source to anyone who asks for it, at no cost (except for the cost of transfer itself if applicable, e.g. postage), and honor that offer for at least 3 years. I believe this is what most companies that use GPL'd code do.
- If the distribution happens at a designated place, offer the source at that same place. This is mostly relevant to download pages, not physical products.
- Verify that the customer already has a copy of the source distributed in advance. This is a specific edge case that makes no sense in this context.
This lawsuit was brought about because the sellers of the TVs that contained Busybox were not doing any of the above four things, and those sellers ignored or ghosted plaintiff when plaintiff contacted them about it.
I am not quite yet st the level where I have a ton of user scripts I'd be lost without, so SSHing into a box is hardly a speed bump for me.
I still listen to my music using a 160 GB iPod Classic. Apple struck gold with that clickwheel. Carrying around a dedicated device for music just for that elegant one-thumb control I don't even have to look at to use is still totally worth it to me.
I'm sure you know it by now, but Mint is the "I Can't Believe It's Not Windows!" distro very much on purpose, haha.
Here's the ELI5 answer I'd give to your friend:
Computers are like servants. They do whatever you ask of them. But to be able to ask them things, you must do so in their language. On the extreme low level that means writing code to make programs, but on a higher level, it means talking to programs someone else already wrote using special commands.
The buttons and switches on a GUI that you can click on with a mouse are like pre-recorded commands that instruct the computer to do some specific thing. The button or whatever will have a symbol or text description that lets you intuitively know what it's for, and when you click on it, it plays a pre-recorded command to the computer in its language that tells it to do that thing. With these buttons, you can ask things of the computer in its language without having to know that language.
As you get more intimate with the computer, this system can start to feel a bit stiff. You've essentially got a butler who doesn't speak your language, and any time you need to give him a task, you have to fumble through a basket of pre-recorded tape recorder messages to find the one for the task at hand, and play it to him. For more complex tasks, you may need to chain several of these together. It gets slow and awkward. And god forbid you don't even have a tape recording for the thing you need.
It's easier if you learn the butler's language yourself. Then you can ask him for things directly. You're not bound to any collection of pre-recorded messages to use, you can tell him exactly what you need. And if you don't happen to know the word for something, you can look it up. It cuts out all the faffery with fumbling over a tape recorder looking for the messages you need to play.
Using a terminal is roughly the computer equivalent of speaking to your butler in his native language. You're not limited to only the buttons and features any particular program lets you have; you can make up exactly what you need on the spot. And you never have to bounce your hand between a mouse and keyboard to do it, you can keep your hands in one position at all times, which really adds up over time in both speed and comfort.
Practicing this will also give you the side perk of better understanding how the computer actually works overall, and what it's actually doing. This knowledge can come in super handy when diagnosing problems with the thing. When a GUI gives up, a terminal can keep digging.
Theoretically, when it's up and running. How do you intend to get to that state, though? One has to install it first. And I think that alone is a massive filter.
inb4 someone says:
I did it, and I found it extremely straightforward.
I'm sure you did, Mr. "I hate how much Reddit is pandering to the braindead to the point that I joined an experimental social media platform", I'm sure you did. Clearly, you are a qualitative sample of people who use Windows computers.
Sarcasm aside, look at how railroaded and coddling the Windows 10 installer is. I am certain a large plurality of Windows users' initiative would completely evaporate having to navigate that. And now we want to throw a Linux installation at them?
Factor on top how the vast majority of computer users in all forms that computers take simply take for granted that the OS the computer comes with is a part of the computer. Normal people don't upgrade OSes unless the OS itself railroads them into it (which Win10 already does aggressively whenable), or they buy a new PC that happens to come with it pre-installed. The knowledge required to negotiate an OS wipe and reinstall is not something most people possess, and I expect presenting that knowledge to them on a silver platter is something they'd hastily recoil from.
We're in a catch-22 here. Even if all the pieces for the fabled Linux Desktop are arguably here, actually getting it into the hands of those who would benefit from it most remains prohibitive.
This is also ignoring the elephant in the room: A massive swath of these Windows PCs (Maybe even most of them? I have no backing figures, just a hunch.) are not personal computers, but office PCs that belong to a company fleet. There's a reason Windows utterly dominates the office--Windows rules the IT sphere, at least where personal devices given to employees are concerned. Active Directory? Group Policy? Come on, guys. None of the companies who depend on these management tools are pivoting to Linux anytime soon, and you know it. And if their cheap, bulk order desk PCs don't support Windows 11, they are absolutely getting landfilled.
The only effective mitigation I could think of would be to start a charity that takes obselesced office PCs, refurbishes them to Linux, and provides them at low or no cost to those who need a low cost or free PC. It would get Linux into more hands, but it would also strengthen a stigma that Linux is nothing more than the poor man's OS. The Dr Thunder to Window's Mountain Dew.
I put my home directory on another partition, because I heard very early on that it can better facilitate distro hopping. That is not the stupid part, that's actually good advice.
The stupid part was assuming that Linux users are identified by name, and that as long as I create a user with the same name as the one on my previous install, things would Just Work.
Im reality, Linux users are integer IDs under the hood. And in my original system, my current user at the time was not the first user I had created on that system. Thus, when I set up my new OS, mounted the home partition, and set the first user to have the same name, I was immediately unable to log in. The name match meant I was trying to read my home dir, but the UID mismatch was telling me I had no permission to read it. I was feeling ballsy with the install and elected to not enable the root user, so I had an effectively bricked OS right out of the box.
I'm sure there was some voodoo I could have done to recover it on that attempt, but I just said screw it and reinstalled.
Rambox, apparently.
Huh?
I've built simple WebGL renders in Firefox several times. The websites for TWGL and three.js, the two most popular JS libraries for WebGL rendering that contain several demos, also load and work correctly and have for years. It clearly works in Firefox to a significant extent.
There must be something Firefox is not quite compliant with, or less performant at, than Chrome, though. If you look at Patreon's website since their logo change, it runs fine in Chrome but chugs in Firefox. I don't know if it's WebGL related but I wouldn't be surprised.