• 4 Posts
  • 152 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: May 31st, 2023

help-circle





  • 7heo@lemmy.mltoPrivacy@lemmy.mlYoutube is now unusable without a frontend
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    This is the way. And I might add, Unix desktop. Let’s not start bikeshedding between FOSS Unix distributions out of dogmatic reasons (I’m sure you didn’t mean to specifically single out “Linux” here, but I wish we would stop opposing “Linux” and other Unixes like BSD, Illumos, etc).

    The point is, voting with your data for software that is defending your interests, and respecting your rights.

    Edit: Dang, I didn’t expect to get so much slack for “Unix as opposed to Unix-Like”. I absolutely meant “Unix-Like”, but my point is that it shouldn’t matter. Most software is trying to be compatible, these days, and Linux isn’t (in spite of all that marketing material) an OS. It is a kernel. So semantics for semantics, can it even be compared to something it is not? I merely tried to be inclusive.



  • I’d argue that what is holding the Linux GUI back is the amount of options, combined with the lack of proper interoperability testing (not for the lack of trying, but between the amount of options and the amount of versions, it is absolutely unfeasible), and the lack of strong design choice on the side of distributions: everyone wants to have and support everything under the sun, even if it means having 4 or 5 different flavours or editions of a particular distribution.

    Don’t get me wrong, I salute the intention and the initiative, but concretely, this almost always (and I put “almost” to be safe, I’ve never seen a counter example) means a clunky, unpolished experience in most cases.

    I usually describe it as:

    If GUIs were doors:

    • Mac OS would be selling literally only one kind of door, that is super slick, brushed metal, glass and white, fancy, with a black glass and brushed metal handle, has a great feel to it, good heft, great handling, satisfying sound and feedback, etc, but then you need to buy everything else from them (including your lights, flooring, etc) or it just won’t open. Of course they sell everything at a premium.
    • Windows would be your standard wooden office door with the standard metal handle and the standard automatic door closer; but anyone can open it even when locked, it needs to be changed every other year, if you “customise” (i.e. adapt it in any way) it it will wear out 10x faster, and any adjustment you do (handle spring tension, automated closer strength and kickback, hinges adjustment, etc) will be reset at night randomly every other week, the door will get new “features” (like microphones, a search prompt, an assistant, etc) randomly, and you can use any kind of furniture you want, but during the “night resets” (aka “upgrades”), all the furniture in the office will be reset to be “Microsoft furniture”, and you will need to exchange it all back in the next morning. And for various unpredictable reasons, once in a while, when going through the door, it will close unexpectedly and violently, slamming you in the face with full force.
    • Linux and FOSS in general is a collection of community made IKEA inspired doors. You can mix and match anything. Any kind of door, any kind of hinge. Any kind of handle. Want a door that opens sideways? Go for it. Want a door that slides up? Do it. Want a butterfly door? Sure. A proximity sensor as a handle? Totally. A carbon fibres and ceramic door? Absolutely. All at once? Why not. In the end, no door is exactly the same, even across the same building, and you often need a few minutes to figure out how new doors work in new buildings. And of course, lots of doors are ill designed, with completely unnecessary features, and conflicting options, like both a sideways and butterfly hinge. Still works, but has caveats. But hey, if it breaks, or doesn’t fit, you can change it any time, get parts anywhere, and there is an absolutely insane amount of community made documentation on most of it (except the internals, some of it is hard to understand, some of it is absolutely obscure, and most of it is documented by people who made it exclusively for people who made it)

    IMHO what we would need is for distributions to “adopt” a given GUI (or DE), and stick to that. Do not even carry the packages for something else. If it is needed, another distribution will be made. That would simplify things a lot, and would greatly relieve the stress on maintainers.

    And it would make for a much more approachable user experience.


  • I would not call that a “privacy proxy”, it is very disingenuous. It is a normal proxy, which replaces the technical metadata from your connection, so that automated tracking is harder. But it will not replace or remove any of your input. And you can easily be tracked that way too.





  • 7heo@lemmy.mltoLinux@lemmy.mlWhat distro should I use on my potato?
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Note: this comment is long, because it is important and the idea that “systemd is always better, no matter the situation” is absolutely dangerous for the entire FOSS ecosystem: both diversity and rationality are essential.

    Systemd can get more efficient than running hundreds of poorly integrated scripts

    In theory yes. In practice, systemd is a huge monolithic single-point-of-failure system, with several bottlenecks and reinventing-the-wheel galore. And openrc is a far cry from “hundreds of poorly integrated scripts”.

    I think it is crucial we stop having dogmatic “arguments” with argumentum ad populum or arguments of authority, or we will end up recreating a Microsoft-like environment in free software.

    Let’s stop trying to shoehorn popular solutions into ill suited use cases, just because they are used elsewhere with different limitations.

    Systemd might make sense for most people on desktop targets (CPUs with several cores, and several GB of RAM), because convenience and comfort (which systemd excels at, let’s be honest) but as we approach “embedded” targets, simpler and smaller is always better.

    And no matter how much optimisation you cram into the bigger software, it will just not perform like the simpler software, especially with limited resources.

    Now, I take OpenRC as an example here, because it is AFAIR the default in devuan, but it also supports runit, sinit, s6 and shepherd.

    And using s6, you just can’t say “systemd is flat out better in all cases”, that would be simply stupid.



  • https://simplex.chat/blog/20240314-simplex-chat-v5-6-quantum-resistance-signal-double-ratchet-algorithm.html

    messenger-comparison

    ¹ Repudiation in SimpleX Chat will include client-server protocol from v5.7 or v5.8. Currently it is implemented but not enabled yet, as its support requires releasing the relay protocol that breaks backward compatibility.

    ² Post-quantum cryptography is available in beta version, as opt-in only for direct conversations. See below how it will be rolled-out further.

    Some columns are marked with a yellow checkmark:

    • when messages are padded, but not to a fixed size.
    • when repudiation does not include client-server connection. In case of Cwtch it appears that the presence of cryptographic signatures compromises repudiation (deniability), but it needs to be clarified.
    • when 2-factor key exchange is optional (via security code verification).
    • when post-quantum cryptography is only added to the initial key agreement and does not protect break-in recovery.





  • This really is the best way. Once there’s a REASON for extra security, people understand and want to learn more.

    No one cares. Nobody around you understands the security, the need for it, and the requirements. They will pretend, to see your kid. And then immediately and completely stop caring. It works for making people adopt your favourite messenger, yes. But nothing else.