2kool4idkwhat

joined 1 year ago
[–] 2kool4idkwhat@lemdro.id 4 points 1 day ago

I kinda just accepted that it exists. Governments literally have hardware-level backdoors in most consumer computers (Intel ME, AMD PSP, etc). There isn't really anything you can do about that if you don't want to cut off yourself from society. I will still pick low-hanging fruit of course, but most of my "opsec" effort is focused on not giving corporations any data

[–] 2kool4idkwhat@lemdro.id 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

"Those who never try, never find out"

[–] 2kool4idkwhat@lemdro.id 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I also like how the pixel3a has a plastic back instead of the glass on the OP6 so it does not shatter if you drop it.

Yeah, same. That's one of the 2 main things I don't like about the OP6 (the other being the non-removable battery). Putting a protective case on it solves the problem though

[–] 2kool4idkwhat@lemdro.id 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

True. It's kinda crazy that nowadays most phones don't have an official way to unlock the bootloader

[–] 2kool4idkwhat@lemdro.id 1 points 5 days ago (4 children)

Nice. I actually installed postmarketOS last year for fun. How is it nowadays? Last time I tried it, the camera didn't work, I didn't manage to set up Waydroid, most non-GTK apps didn't adapt well to a phone, and afaik there were no push notifications (which was a big deal for me because having an app always running in the background made the battery drain much faster). Also what interface do you use? I used Gnome with mobile patches

[–] 2kool4idkwhat@lemdro.id 13 points 5 days ago (11 children)

Clearly, phone hardware has gotten to the point where it can support software for that long, and computers have been in that stage for a very long time

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Software supports hardware, not the other way around. You could run the latest android on any powerful enough hardware. The only limit is the porting effort

For example, the samsung galaxy s4 was released in 2013 with android 4 and the latest official version for it is android 5

The lineageos folks however have been - until recently - maintaining android 11 (and previous versions) for it, afaik fairly easly. The only reason they don't have newer android versions for the s4 is that android 12 depends on a kernel feature which samsung's ancient official version doesn't have. The lineageos folks could in theory reverse engineer the proprietary drivers and maintain a more up to date kernel for the s4, but they simply don't have the manpower

Samsung tho? They easily could support modern android versions on this 2013 phone, but they won't for the same reason they made batteries non-removable: they don't want you to use old hardware, they want you to buy a new phone every year

I typed this on my 2018 phone (oneplus 6) running android 14 (the latest official version is android 11)

[–] 2kool4idkwhat@lemdro.id 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I've seen that blog post. Tbh Vaxry is kinda unhinged. I think he cares about Cosmic being written in Rust more than the "rust cultists" themselves :P

[–] 2kool4idkwhat@lemdro.id 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (9 children)

Gnome. I actually started with KDE. It's a good DE, but it's got so many options that I had choice fatigue. I constantly tweaked my taskbar instead of focusing on what I wanted to do. And it was easy to get it to a "looks broken" state

When I tried Gnome, I fell in love with it. I love the unique workflow, lack of distractions, the modern adwaita design, etc. Everything felt so polished

That being said, I don't like how Gnome devs seemingly can't agree on anything with other desktop environments. And I don't like how they refuse to support server-side window decorations. Like, I agree with them that CSD are better than SSD, but it would be reasonable to support SSD for toolkits that haven't/don't want to implement CSD themselves, right?

I'm excited for Cosmic. It looks like it combines the best of Gnome and KDE, and the devs don't have the “my way or the highway” mindset

[–] 2kool4idkwhat@lemdro.id 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

~/projects for things I made

~/git for things other people made

[–] 2kool4idkwhat@lemdro.id 9 points 1 week ago

I didn't notice this before reading your comment, but now I can't unsee this

[–] 2kool4idkwhat@lemdro.id 2 points 1 week ago

Yeah I feel the same, I was just joking

[–] 2kool4idkwhat@lemdro.id 45 points 1 week ago (5 children)

2034: The Vatican unveils official furry mascot

 

alt textA comic

Windows OS: "We have a brand new feature called Windows Recall that you might like!"

Guy: "Oh boy! What does it do?"

Windows: "It helps you find anything you've seen on your PC by using clues you give or by letting you scroll through your past activity!"

Guy: "Wow! How does this tech work?"

Windows: "Our Windows AI constantly takes pictures of your screen and saves all that data"

292
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by 2kool4idkwhat@lemdro.id to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone
 

alt-text"Great posts everyone, really funny stuff going around the website today"

 

I've wanted to install an extension from outside addons.mozilla.org, but Firefox didn't let me do it

So I've did a small research and looks like there are 3 ways to sideload extensions, but all of them suck

  1. Using FF Developer Edition

In the Dev Edition you can set xpinstall.signatures.required to false in about:config, but the problem is that the Dev Edition isn't as stable as standard FF

  1. Temporarily load the extension

In about:debugging#/runtime/this-firefox you can temporarily sideload extensions, but they will be removed next time you open FF, which is annoying

  1. Modify FF code

Lastly, I found this script which modifies the FF code, but this can break things so I don't want to use it

I'm really annoyed that Mozilla gets to decide which extensions I can install. So... what's the best way to sideload extensions?

Edit: thanks everyone, I'm now using a FF fork (Librewolf) which lets me sideload extensions after disabling xpinstall.signatures.required

 
view more: next ›