If I remember right, Reddit hired somebody who was formerly at NSA or Pentagon. Posting anything anti-Ukranian or pro-Russian gets heavily censored. Not surprised that it happens with Hamas too, as the US provoked a civil war between Fatah and Hamas by openly and publicly favouring Fatah. They hate Hamas.
I don't get it - why can't the "right holder" who wants a site blocked drag Cloudflare itself to the court over this, just like ISP's are asked to do the blocking now?
They could but this would force people down the legal route vs. being able to easily filter on edge devices. Meaning ISP's and corporations that cooperate with requests vs. court orders would be out of the picture and block-lists distributed by firewall vendors become less effective.
This may get interesting in the corporate world where firewalls such as PAN and Fortigates are expected to block unwanted domains. Some companies also filter on internal DNS but may have to start blocking or intercepting MiTM DoH or just outright blocking the DNS "HTTPS" requests which is one documented way to disable ECH. [1]
Obama getting the Nobel peace price was when I realised what a big political joke the whole thing is (and I admire Obama!).
It is very clear that it is just another political tool used by the west - Gandhi did not get the award because the British government lobbied hard against him. Imagine, the man who advocated for peaceful political resolutions throughout his life, who was the architect of the non-violent political movement that inspired 100's of millions in his own country and other foreign leaders to embrace it too for their local political cause, is considered "not worthy" of the very thing that this "Peace" prize seeks to bestow recognition upon.
The founders of the Non-Aligned Movement also deserved the peace prize for refusing to get involved in the cold war politics (a very black and white way of looking at international politics). I am sure there are many more good examples, around the world, of people who deserved this prize but weren't seriously considered (or deliberately omitted) because of western politics.
If he can be trusted to be an "American" as a naturalised citizen, why does America bar a naturalised citizen from becoming the President? (The US constitution bars naturalised citizens from contesting in the Presidential poll).
Note that out of these, the PaleMoon browser ( https://www.palemoon.org ) is the only real "hard" fork of Firefox. The others are all "soft" forks of Mozilla Firefox in that they all just customise some existing settings as defaults or customise the UI or integrate their own extensions of Firefox and rebrand it.
The PaleMoon team however forked even Mozilla Gecko ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gecko_(software) ), the browser engine that is at the heart of Firefox to create the Goanna browser engine ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goanna_(software) ) that now powers the PaleMoon browser and the Unified XUL Platform (a framework that can be used to create multi-platform desktop applications with web technologies).
Another "hard" fork of Firefox Gecko is the Servo browsing engine ( https://servo.org/ ) though no browser application has been built on it yet.
It's really unfortunate that the Pale Moon team are also totally unlikable, which is probably among the reasons why usage has dropped off since it was in vogue in the early-mid 2010s. This[0] issue in a WIP repo for OpenBSD always reminds me of the line in The Big Lebowski "You're not wrong Walter, you're just an asshole". It's fascinatingly hostile for little cause and a non-trivial amount of reputational damage. All in the name the vitally important cause of er... making sure there's not an implementation of Pale Moon that doesn't fully fit their license in a WIP repo.
I suspect that they don't attract the best contributors, given how hard they seem to be to work with.
> It's really unfortunate that the Pale Moon team are also totally unlikable, which is probably among the reasons why usage has dropped off since it was in vogue in the early-mid 2010s.
I'm not sure that's the reason. Regardless of feelings users may have toward developers, they'll still use the best tool for the job. I used Pale Moon on an older computer because none of the modern browsers performed well, including FF. I was well aware of some of the drama.
(Likewise, I raged against Microsoft for years before I made the switch to Linux. So many other examples)
I'm thinking that over the last 4 years (since 2019), many users have upgraded their hardware and the need for Pale Moon - as a lighter browser alternative - has simply diminished.
That is just completely opposed to the spirit of FOSS. A really sad way to treat contributors like Feodor, but a very effective way of ensuring I'll never use that fork
True enough. It was sort of a LoTR Wormtongue and King Theoden situation. While Tobin was around Moonchild made some terrible choices. It's much better now.
That is good to hear, but still, as another responder pointed out, the primary maintainer didn't handle things much better - although if he had, funnily enough, at least one of the incidents would've been resolved with a lot less reputational damage
Also, I find it slightly amusing how often they bring up the legal aspect of these licenses. They're not wrong, of course, but are they really going to hire lawyers to go after someone like Feodor? At most maybe they'll get it removed from Github and other platforms that care to respond to such requests?
And inherently a far less ram using browser. I do 500 tabs in under 3GB. By also not implementing all the useless attack surfaces like DRM, Integrated PDF reader, WebRTC, and friends it avoids many of the exploits which make modern browsers like FF and Chrome insecure. Overall it probably balances out. Especially since PM users are likely to have JS execution disabled by default (like I do).
Well, it's not Facebook, Twitter, Discord or the like. I'll to you that. It's mostly actual websites written in HTML (like HN). But even with no websites loaded if you tried to open 500 blank Chrome tabs you'd run out of RAM. That's just the nature of per-tab many process browsers.
And 500 is just my actively loaded tabs. I have another 500 suspended.
Another hard fork is Basilisk (https://www.basilisk-browser.org/), which was originally developed by the folks behind Pale Moon but is now independent.
And then if the standards body doesn’t accept their solution because low end Android manufacturers don’t want to spend an extra 20 cents on a build of materials?
That’s why PC OEMs didn’t support FireWire before USB 3 came out except for Sony and Dell on some of their high end offerings.
If you don’t like Apple’s offerings you are free to choose Android/Windows
Remember how old electrical appliances used to come with full circuit diagrams to help repair them? That's one way to go about this is - force hardware manufacturers to provide complete device and technical specification (e.g. https://datasheets.raspberrypi.com/rp2040/rp2040-datasheet.p... (PDF)) for every hardware they manufacture. This should enable any competent system developers to create the drivers for it, for any software system. (After all, realistically, we cannot force hardware manufacturers to create drivers for every OS in the world).
One major objection we can expect is that sometimes hardware manufacturers deliberately cripple their products through their drivers. This enables them to sell a cheaper version, that is crippled, and a costlier one that isn't. One example of this is Intel and AMD manufacturing a quad-core processor, but selling the same processor as dual-core and quad-core (remember how AMD allowed you to "unlock" extra cores on their processors?). I think NVIDIA also limits some of their graphic card with their drivers, to sell the same hardware at different prices.
> * How will it make my everyday experience better as an Apple customer without the integration of software and hardware between my Mac, iPads Watch, Airpods and phone?*
"Open Standards" - There is no reason that your Mac or iPhone should only work with other Apple products through closed and proprietary standards. With adoption of open standards, all devices (irrespective of their manufacturer) can offer a decent integrated experience.
It is a great idea, but with a caveat: communism is a great idea too, and pretty much in the same sense. I can say that about most of the propositions in this thread.
I, as a user (and a vim-user, may I add), would like it very much if all the software and hardware in the world would be fully open, customizable, community-maintained. I, as a manufacturer, am less keen on that idea. So, to make it happen, every manufacturer has to be forced to make that happen. So, literally, we are stepping farther from the open market and killing some personal freedom under a promise of a bright happy future.
And the realness of that promise is as questionable, as the means necessary to achieve the goal. As I've said, personally, I'm very excited about that promise. But it really is just a promise, and if it can be fulfilled is a very, very big question.
Ultimately, nobody really sells hardware or software. Everybody sells user-experience. It is very obvious in Apple's case, but it is always true. It's easy to forget that when you are choosing the cheapest light bulbs on the market, because the user-experience of having electric light in your house has been sold to you so long ago, there are so many basically identical products that the only apparent difference to you is the price. Now you perceive GPUs (or bluetooth, or whatever) as light bulbs. But at some point selling a GPU or a light bulb was quite similar to selling a novel iSomething. The seller had to explain to you, not so much what iSomething is, but how iSomething makes your life better. And if the technology that makes this promise of the user-experience a reality is hardware, software or just exceptional marketing — really is just details.
So, as much as I hate that my fitness-watch is basically a spying device and I don't even own the data it produces (and I mean, I really hate that), I don't feel like forcing Garmin to open-source the firmware is the right thing to do. Maybe I would support some more forceful moves to make the generated data my property, but even here the line is blurry. But forcing them (and better think: you, as a manufacturer) to make something other than you wanted to make — …why the fuck should I? Who decides what is that common standard I don't want in my product, but I have to, to be legally allowed to sell that? I think, I just like the idea of personal freedom a bit too much to support that. I'd much prefer Garmin just losing to competition that chooses open firmware, than legally forcing them to produce anything they didn't want to produce.
> ... literally, we are stepping farther from the open market and killing some personal freedom...
No, we are democratically balancing consumer rights with the rights of entrepreneurs to make money. Consumers need the right to repair and not be limited with closed, proprietary standards. That entrepreneurs may take take a slight hit on their profit due to this is acceptable as protecting the consumer enhances the well being of the overall society that both entrepreneurs and the consumers are part of. (And note that right to repair and open standards can also foster more competition in the "free market" and reduce monopolistic abuses - so it is really a win-win for both sides).
Right. By stepping farther from the open market and killing some personal freedom. (Also, word "democratically" is absolutely meaningless in this context, but that's the usual mode it is used in in western politics.)
> "democratically" is absolutely meaningless in this context
No, it isn't. When a law / regulation / policy is made all stakeholders are consulted and their views sought on it. Consumers are one of the stakeholders in context of what we are talking about. Politicians than work out a compromise that balances everyone's concerns. That's basically democracy at work.
You can seamlessly share standard Bluetooth devices between 5 devices just by pairing it to one like I do with my iPhone, iPad, Watch, MacBook and AppleTV and it automatically switches?
"seamlessly". I've had trouble between just an Apple-branded mobile phone and their branded all-in-one computer when it comes to the Apple-branded wireless headphones. The ping-pong between active sound channel/device had me disable the "seamless" handover, as it were a subpar experience for me. Better to manually decide which device that actively "owns" the channel.
Yeah. Multipoint connection has been a part of the Bluetooth spec since 4.0. Compatible devices will connect to anything available nearby and negotiate audio to whichever device pressed 'play' last. No iCloud mumbo-jumbo required, it was smoother than the Airpods experience when I was using it.
And how many “multipoint” devices support an unlimited number of devices? I currently have 2 AppleTVs, a MacBook, iPad, an iPhone and an Apple Watch all paired to my AirPods .
What’s the pairing process like? Mine is just - sign into iCloud and my AirPods show up.
I have JBL headphones currently paired with Samsung phone, tablet, Intel NUC running Ubuntu and MacBook Pro running macOS. No problem, no cloud login necessary.
And how is he supposed to tell how it will work with your devices? He already said examples of how many devices he has and that it works with, and you did the same for yours. You haven't presented any standard spec and pointed to the part where the spec states the figure that lists the max number of devices. He shared some spec, I am sure you could find some number there.
Apparently 8 with some gotchas? But in principle this should not be gated to a hardware, what is stopping one from making a bluetooth device that muxes all the signals and sends it to the audio device? Is there any reason thats not happening other than greed of the headphone makers to try to upsell "higher models"?
I don't even get the point of these hardcore Apple defenders tbh man. You are not Apple, and you only gain to benefit from if supposedly they have good hardware and software, it also becomes more open for you or others to find better uses for it. You only gain not lose from that. Here on an HN linked article I was reading how Asahi managed to find and fix some audio bug in a macbook model. When multiple people are working on drivers often the foss can end up being superior to the drivers made by the manufacturer.
This website is not a serious place. Intelligent people are not attracted to a platform calling itself "Hacker News" - roleplayers and onlookers get sucked in instead. Venture capitalists and entrepreneurs get tricked into thinking that this is problem-solving. DogTV™ gets funded and busts out, destitute shareholders and makers go looking for the next big thing. The cycle continues.
With some people, I have no idea where they fall on the spectrum of self-serious argumentation. I usually don't even care; pretty much all feedback is valuable on a forum like this. When people preclude good-faith discussion around Apple hardware with weaksauce rhetoric though, it's pretty obvious that they're putting their emotions first. I'll field any discussion around Apple and their altruism, but I won't accept petty greed or speculation as a defense. They're an opaque company that deserves the scrutiny they recieve, regardless of the unofficial rationale people roll out.
This problem isn't specific to Apple hardware, or really the tech industry as a whole. Every field has it's pundits; you can usually identify them when they use weak rhetoric and avoid directly addressing your argument. It's still especially bad with Apple technology though, since so little of it is documented well enough to definitively refute any claim. You can't corroborate behavior on your iPhone with source code, or visit the iCloud datacenters to ensure everything is being handled with white gloves. People who know the platform well usually know that there is no definitive answer, and inflammatory riff-raff discussions float to the top.
What do you gain from it remaining closed? Why are you so defensive about the idea of Apple being forced to open it up? Are you an Apple employee or do you have Apple stocks or is there any other reason? You lose literally nothing and gain lots from them being opened up. I don't care about any "trouble" Apple has with it because I am not Apple. I am a person who thinks of his needs first, just as Apple is an entity that thinks of their needs first. They don't need your help for that. Just like Apple my needs come first, and my needs definitely think its more enjoyable to see Apple (and other hardware makers) opened up because it benefits me. I always advocate for and practice things that benefit me, I don't care if it benefits Apple, if it does, good for them, if it doesn't its not my problem either. And Apple thinks the same of you and me and all is customers.
Even if we ignore the fact that other manufacturers have it too, you won't lose this Apple product should Apple be forced to open it up. Its very telling you simply refused to answer that point blank question completely and tried to change the topic. I am asking you again, even more point blank: what exactly do you lose if Apple is forced to open up this product and release its driver sources, etc? How does it change anything at all with how the device is already working for you? Why are you unable to give a straight answer to such an extremely simple question?
You get that with or without Apple technology. There's not a single 'gotcha' you've named yet.
Furthermore, Apple's integrated solution quite literally depends on the Open standard of Bluetooth to operate. Whether or not you consider it a bad thing, quite obviously the integration and open solution both work fine alongside one another.
Yes and the phone also depends on standards when it comes to electricity. The fact is that Apple’s work on top of the standard provide a more robust more user friendly implementation.
Next though, you'll tell me that those democratically elected officials aren't "people", and are more profit-motivated than a business. Whatever helps you sleep at night, I suppose.
Again, why do I care why it happens. Your “open” standards leads to a shittier experience.
> Next though, you'll tell me that those democratically elected officials aren't "people", and are more profit-motivated than a business. Whatever helps you sleep at night, I suppose
It’s cute that you think politicians represent “the people” considering how PACs work or that you think they are “democratically” elected considering how gerrymandered most districts are.
Then you got to consider how each state has an equal number of senators regardless of population.
> Again, why do I care why it happens. Your “open” standards leads to a shittier experience.
Again, why do you? Apple's products have worked just fine implimenting open standards (eg. HTML, TLS, AES, RSA, etc.). You could easily argue that the iPhone wouldn't be popular without open standards like Bluetooth and the Internet.
> It’s cute that you think politicians represent “the people”
Does the unregulated market represent it any better? I'd rather let gerrymandered electors regulate the market than allow the market to regulate itself.
Apple products work fine working on top of those standards and adding its own features where it can make sure those features work consistently because it is an integrated environment.
Well, if I have a choice between a corporation - which I can choose not to support and a government with guns and the ability to take away my rights by force having power, I’ll choose private corporations every time.
> Well, if I have a choice between a corporation [...] I’ll choose private corporations every time.
To have a choice in the first place, you can't participate in a regulated market. Right now, you're complaining that your favorite player can't "win" a game of Blackjack by overruling the dealer. I don't know what to tell you; those are the rules of the game. Apple can go play their Calvinball economy in some other developing market, and so can you.
Its not open enough. If it was open enough I could feed it any signal I want into the audio interface, including from any bluetooth device to MUX them how I want.
