Pup Biru

i feel like this makes it on par with eg newpipe right? since newpipe doesn’t have a server, so all requests are direct to youtube

people seem to be okay with the fingerprint trade-off… and a vpn (as in, an external vpn that invidious routes all traffic through) would help with that

are you sure?

there could be thousands just waiting for a failure to come out and say “HEY THIS IS DODGY”

that’s what automation is for - nobody is going to manually check them, but anyone is able to automatically set something up to check their hashes in change… the fact that it’s possible that anyone is doing that now that it’s a known issue perhaps makes it less problematic as an attack vector

oracles lawyers are pretty bad too

rust was literally written as a systems programming language to take a similar place as C. i’m not sure of the restrictions you mean

the kernel has parts being rewritten in rust afaik so perhaps there’s less resistance than you think

and fewer to none of those allow you to submit kmesg and “debug information” to the kernel bug tracker

worth clarifying though afaik brave has said they won’t remove v2; not that they will continue to support it… ie if there’s a breaking change in upstream chromium, i’m not sure i have confidence that they’ll spend a bunch of time working around it

there’s certainly a camp in FOSS that considers “whatever you like including commercial activity” to be the one true valid version of “free software”

like… if someone wants to take an MIT project, add a bunch of extra features to it keeping some available only with payment, and contribute back bug fixes and some minor features etc, i wouldn’t necessarily say that’s harming the project and this is overall a good thing? it gets the original project more attention

like it’s perhaps a little unfair, but if the goal is quality and scope of the original project - or even broader of the goal is simply to have technology AVAILABLE even if it is with a few - then that goal has been met more with an MIT-like license than it would be with a copyleft license

stupidity is a once-off

malice is a pattern

and even if it’s not malicious, a pattern of stupid action needs to be stopped just as much as malicious action

this changes nothing: microsoft should have sent a patch remains microsoft should have sent a patch; internal policies are irrelevant to actions and effecting external projects

the “new” hotness is grid layout

you’re not entirely wrong, but this is the current standard/accepted advice for local development - probably what we’re talking about given this thread is about git commits - because the chance of exploit via this mechanism requires local access… with such access, you’re pretty screwed in far more ways

that’s fair, and i think that in the context that we were both talking about, what we both wrong was reasonably correct

arch is a reliable OS that is sometimes unstable

but a server needs a stable OS to be reliable, which means that whilst arch can be a reliable OS, it does not make a particularly reliable server

disagreement is fine, but there was literally a thread about “linux disinformation” where the OP asked for examples of things people say about linux that are untrue

the top answers by FAR are that arch is stable

saying that arch is stable, or easy for newcomers is doing the linux ecosystem a disservice

you should never use arch for a server - arbitrary, rather than controlled and well-tested updates to the bleeding edge is literally everything you want to avoid in a server OS

snaps are like poor man’s containers when it comes to servers… maybe better than having single-use VMs but if you’re wanting to build out real systems in a modern way, i literally haven’t worked with anyone using ubuntu in the last ~10 years

arch is great if you don’t really care about your server being reliable (eg home lab) but their ethos isn’t really great for a server that has to be reliable… the constant update churn causes issues a lot more than i’d personally like for a server environment

it’s just less reliable, more corporate, more bloated debian

… so why would you?

yes and no… competition is good, but we do already have blink, webkit, and gecko… browser engines are biiiiig, complex beasts, and we do have competition already… more competition, at some point, becomes redundant

that only reinforces that you should use firefox… forcing google to pay more money to mozilla and giving mozilla more power to negotiate is a good thing

sure google has some power over them with the money they give, but by using chromium that power is absolute - no need to pay, ask, influence when you just get