You don’t need years for a terminal, at least not for the stuff a normal user would have to expect to do with it (so eg.: not browsing files, that has good UIs already). But you should expect to have to learn something. We require people to learn and even certify their learning when they are to drive a car for example, and for computers we are not even askng 1/6th of that, even tho the last few decades show we maybe should.

You don’t need to do everything on the terminal – even today, you don’t have to. But you should not fear the terminal, the same way you should not fear a piano because you play a violin. Windows also has a terminal, there’s stuff that tells you to go there to enable some Powershel things, and no one complains.

Or with cooperatives. Cooperatives are a good alternative to corporations.

Just sell the car to a derby demolition show. We all win.

But Kagi is going to run on the webkit engine, right?

Added to my dictionary!

Regarding things like dockers and flatpaks, I mostly “solve” it by only running official images, or at least images from the same dev as the program, where possible.

But also IMO there’s little to no reason to fear when using things like flatpaks. Most exploits one hears of nowadays are of the kind “your attacker needs to get a shell into your machine in the first place” or in some cases evn “your attacker needs to connect to an instance of a specific program you are running, with a specific config”, so if you apply any decent opsec that’s already a v high barrier of entry.

And speaking of Debian, that does bring to mind the one beef I have with their packaging system: that when installing a package it starts the related services by default, without even giving you time to configure them.

“liver spots”? ESL here so there’s idioms I don’t grok.

I don’t.

Yeah, hot take, but basically there’s no point to me having to keep track of all that stuff and excessively worry about the dangers of modernity and sacrifice the spare time I have on watching update counter go brrrr of all things, when there’s entire peoples and agencies in charge of it.

I just run unattended-upgrades (on Debian), pin container image tags to only the major version number where available, run rebuild of containers twice a week, and go enjoy the data and media I built the containers and installed for software for.

The screw-ups keep mounting like they want to be Google.

They (and we)'ve got to admit, the solution is not going to come from within their (managerial) ranks.

At this point I’d be happy to offer my services as a BDFL for Mozilla, at but a small fraction of the wages of any of their C-suites.

And this is not about the kink. It’s about the shitters in the video.

Heck, it probably can be done with a regex. (Yeah, I know)

There’s no need to kill three forests just to do the exact same work you could have done by opening your dataset in Excel.

Forgejo gives you a registry built-in.

Also is it just me or does the docker hub logo look like it’s giving us the middle finger?

Doesn’t need to (but yeah yeah they’re Google, I know…). They just should name it “Gulf of México” or whatever the translated name is to the user’s device, and add an asterisk somewhere that shows a note to the effect of “a small fraction of Confederate remnants think it should be called ‘Gulf of America’”.

What else do people expect them to do?

1.- Refuse-

2.- Apply only the part of the name change that’s actually covered by US jurisdiction. The Gulf of Mexico extends noticeably beyond US’s borders.

But hey this is Google we’re talking about.

Besides, it still say Gulf of Mexico if you’re outside the USA.

If I’m a eg.: Colombian, it should be “Gulf of Mexico” “Golfo de México” wherever I stand, not “Gulf of America”.

Technically the only way you can vet, is by having root access to their servers and law officer level access to their documents.

Failing that, I can think of four baseline conditions to venture that a given product “shouldn’t” enshittify, or that at least the utility of the project is recoverable (or forkable) if it does:

Req 0: Copiability. The software actually provides a full offline (or local) service. There’s no way (that I know of!) to enshittify something that can live fully independently from its “mothership”.

Req 1: “Letter and Spirit”. License has to be Free Software (not just “Open Source”) with all the liberties that come with it. (I assume in the future, an exception might be made to allow for New Ethical licenses that would be not FOSS as per the current definition)

Req 2: Reproducibility. Someone else has to have verified that using the source release builds the whole product (at most excepting “assets” like logos). This is usually verified empirically by someone getting to run and maintain a competing instance.

Req 3: No bite hand. The provider must have not used legal measures to exercise violence or restrictions against users of the product (be those consumers or devs). This includes eg.: using the DMCA to punish reviews, or punish implementation of req 2.

If a combination of provider and product completes those four requirements, I feel relatively well assured that the product can’t reasonably enshittify, or at least that if it were to happen, there will be enough advance notice and devel momentum that the value of the product can be recovered from it.

Oh i see. I thought there was more to it – but I guess it’s just Java being horrible as usual.

Oh dear!

Wayland

Java support

…what?

It’s incredible that wayland is so incapable that it can’t even keep this kind of state, and we’re back to having to basically having to write .xinit scripts. Because that’s what little so far wayland offers: less than xinit.