[-] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 9 hours ago

except that it can, and regularly does, regurgitate copyrighted works verbatim.

[-] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 week ago

so the creator of gif himself was deliberately transgressive?

[-] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 week ago

i love the dougdoug ones for that

[-] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 week ago

but in games, triple buffering is the norm

[-] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 week ago

I had lots of cars the size of burgers though, when I was a little child

[-] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 week ago

that's just how the code is rendered. There's still all the usual constructs

[-] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 week ago

except that they literally say it is.

[-] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 38 points 2 weeks ago

because we can

[-] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 24 points 2 weeks ago

doesn't have to be a cube

[-] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 weeks ago

new features are fine. But first and foremost, is not breaking existing apps, or committing to porting them yourself. So if desktop apps need to do xyz, then wayland needs to support doing xyz. period. No 'but that's insecure', no 'but why would you want to do that' (for setting a window icon or positioning the window ffs). Support existing applications. I'm not saying it should support x protocols. But it should offer replacement features for existing apps to be ported to. And it needs to be wayland. Because it's already the case that certain functionality is implemented for gnome, or kde, with incompatible apis, to fill in the void left by wayland itself. If I want an app to work as I want it, consistently, everywhere? X, with all its warts, is my only choice.

As an example, the accessibility protocols. They're good to have. Except they're opt-in. So incompatible with existing apps. Some apps need to restrict access. They could declare that and make use of additional functionality. But no, choose a default that break everything instead.

The argument that apps just need to be ported also assumes the app is still maintained. Are you willing to do the work yourself if not? Probably not. You're just the one looking down on people like me for wanting functionality in existing apps to be "not literally impossible to implement"

[-] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 weeks ago

I do not care about security risks. If something made its way onto my system, I've already lost. I just want one implementation of something that gets the job done. And by "gets the job done" I mean it allows us to do things better, not disallow us from even having the option to do things because someone had their tinfoil hat on too tight. Ffs you can't even set your window icon. I don't care if kde has implemented that feature. If I use that, I'd be supporting kde, not wayland. It won't work on other des and so the maintenance burden increases drastically.

view more: next ›

vrighter

joined 1 year ago