Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)LA
Posts
9
Comments
834
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • , pero como una es porfiada, me vine caminando de Tobalaba a la Muni de Vitacura.

    ¡Espero que hayas hecho valer la pena lo porfiada y hayas hecho ese trayecto tomando el tramo El Cerro - La Pirámide - Padre Hurtado! Si no no, a repetir.

    Por lo demás nanai, que se mejore.

  • That has always been my main criticism about wayland: it's actually vaporware.

    It's just a spec (and not even a complete one) that says "now, you go do our work and implement all this". So everyone has to go and do their own thing, which is the usual big corpo strategy to kill small corpo and/or FOSS. So I wonder why don't people see it. Pulseaudio, wayland, systemd, all came in at about the same time as the "microsoftism" infection in Linux development.

    From what I recall, for the first 5-or-so years there was not even a reference implementation (and I don't know if that is still the case, but do would expect it is).

  • On the one hand that means future Kubuntus (for a while) won't have remote desktop, remote UI commands, global hotkeys, nor other such useful features. Or, heck, won't have accessibility. On the other hand, from the progress I've seen KDE are among the better positioned to change that, so who knows. Prepping for a Kubuntu LTS?

    On the third hand, it's still Ubuntu. The Wayland fixes are probably going to be shipped as snaps for the Pro version.

  • Good catch. Still, doesn't make it true either: it's not such a "fundamental use case" that it would even require the capability. The browser already reports the usable information in the user agent (you rarely even in that 1% need more specificity than "Windows" on "Desktop Intel").

  • No. It should be made available with a permission, because not every site out there is going to offer you to download binaries. 1% of the web """requiring""" this does not justify 99% of the web being able to violate that privacy.

  • Operating system and CPU architecture are useful for sites to serve the correct binaries when a user is downloading an application.

    Barely. You could trim down the data to incredibly low granularity ("OS: Windows", "CPU: Intel Desktop") and you'd still get the exact same binary as 99% of the people 99% of the time, anyway.

  • No need to report any sort of even remotely precise value then. Just report "low" or "high". Also it's bold of you to assume that just because I am plugged to the wall I want to be served 400 MB of exta javascript and MPEG4 instead of one CSS file and a simple PNG.

  • One of the biggest reasons websites need to run JS is submitting form data to a server. Like this website.

    No. Forms function quite perfectly without JS thanks to action=.

    Now whether you want to get "desktop app" fancy with forms and pretend you are a "first-class desktop citizen" that's a skill issue. But submitting form data, by itself, has not required JS since at least 1979. Maybe earlier.