amenod

5 ms·

1.
by amenod 8mo ago
> Just in case you want an even more vintage experience. Just to clarify, it's not about "vintage experience". Xfce is deceptively simple - it gets out of your way and let you do whatever you wish. The original settings ar
2.
by amenod 8mo ago
What are you talking about? Author is talking about user experience, they way changes (as far as user is concerned) Do Not Happen (much), how they don't try to invent new UI paradigm (cough Gnome cough) and are Not Fucking It Up (cough
3.
by amenod 9mo ago
Sure. Or we could say that when someone is used to the way things work, one is reluctant to change and will find all kinds of "faults" to keep them from taking the plunge. As I said, I have my own list of things with linux I would
4.
by amenod 9mo ago
It's not that I don't have my own set of gripes about linux, but this wishlist is weird, at least to me: - There is nothing wrong with sudo - or to be precise, it is good thing that administrative operations are explicit. And s
5.
by amenod 2y ago
Just tried it... Couldn't figure out in 5 minutes how to add files to a playlist. Pass.
6.
by amenod 2y ago
So how do you validate the data? You can apply all the changes to existing record and validate the result, but then you need to put everything in memory. Verifying the operations however sounds dangerous... Any pointers? Also, if someone is
7.
by amenod 2y ago
This app is using "local storage" (storage that is local to your computer), not browser "window.localStorage".
8.
by amenod 2y ago
Not sure what the point is here? My point is that OP is not afraid of new tech per-se, but instead doesn't like where it is now and finds it dangerous. I'm sure in time the technology will evolve and there won't be a new car
9.
by amenod 2y ago
It seems that OP isn't so much fearful of new technology as they are fearful of dying (and killing others).
10.
by amenod 2y ago
Good for you! As they say: face your fears, live your dreams. > ...this may have come also from my interest in psychology, who knows... Do you have a good recommendation where to start for someone who had zero interest during school year
11.
by amenod 3y ago
Actually you can override it, but they made the process so convoluted and privacy breaking that I would guess not many people use it. So yes, effectively they blocked it.
12.
by amenod 3y ago
Why "security problem"? The wording is telling: > ...for various reasons, including security concerns. Security is just a red herring. Who wins with this move? The cynic in me (who is usually annoyingly right) says Google. Mozi
13.
by amenod 4y ago
> ...but there's no guarantee my hardware is compatible with Ubuntu LTS 22.04 because the vendor doesn't support that config... So it's your vendor who doesn't care about backwards compatibility - Linux does. Whatev
14.
by amenod 4y ago
It's not "pretty standard", but we're working towards it and it looks like a pretty great solution. Our problem is that CI job runners sleep most of the day (low number of commits), but then you have spikes where the job
15.
by amenod 4y ago
I'm reminded of Isaac Asimov, who has built a whole range of stories on the 3 principles of robotics, with many situations arising where reality didn't match how the creators thought the robot should behave in a given situation. I
16.
by amenod 4y ago
Uncharitable or not, but it is true. Even with some improvements, git UI sucks to this day. Linus didn't care much about the chrome and had a special aversion against anything that smelled of SVN, including the names of the commands
17.
by amenod 4y ago
Mercurial wasn't (at least for the projects I used it for).
18.
by amenod 4y ago
[15] https://web.archive.org/web/20200111221557/https://www.thegu...
19.
by amenod 4y ago
If you are on Linux, just run xeyes. Classic. :)
20.
by amenod 4y ago
That sounds doable, but... why opensource? Does this mean that people / companies are not prepared to pay for the product or service?
21.
by amenod 4y ago
Or it's a filter. No need to send anything if you are unsure.
22.
by amenod 4y ago
Sorry, but this is bullshit. If I employ relevant techniques to protect my domain and the protection works , and I am not sending spam (which I am not), then Google (no idea what MS does) should not care about the IP I am sending my e-mail
23.
by amenod 4y ago
No, would that help? I am however using SPF and one of DKIM / DMARC (I forget which). But anyway, I can live with a mail missing here and there. It is just annoying and isn't right.
24.
by amenod 4y ago
I hope so! I am tired of explaining people that it's actually Google's fault they didn't receive my mail. I'll be happy when they pay dearly for the disservice they do to e-mail.
25.
by amenod 4y ago
Fair enough.
26.
by amenod 4y ago
Sure, but that is usually by the request of the owner, if I'm not mistaken? Better cover most of the cases than none.
27.
by amenod 4y ago
Gmail is a market leader only because it is good enough (and at the start it was even better than competition) and because it was free - and still is for some cases. Can't comment on Google Apps, never used them. Otherwise, I'm
28.
by amenod 4y ago
I agree with you - and you are still missing the point. The enterprises are buying a service. They don't care that it is running on AHWRGGG instead of TLMWBBB (which is soooo much better). What they care about is that it runs, and when
29.
by amenod 4y ago
StackOverflow was one such service (or still is? not sure...).
30.
by amenod 4y ago
Unfortunately, yes. But it still works and rocks. uBlock Origin has kind-of-similar (but not quite) functionality where you can block by domains, but it is not as granular (it is called "Advanced" something IIRC).

More ›