I don’t want to be patronized and much less by a software vendor

I mean, he found the checkbox in KDE's settings, which should have been respected, and several other technical ways to disable it from starting by itself, all of which should have been respected. It's still a shitty way to operate.

lmao I was just about to say something similar. This dude was blinded by rage to the point where he just didn't....check the settings?

Kudos to him for owning the mistake and keeping the post up. I'd do a shame delete immediately.

I think its a matter of responsibility. KDE is responsible for startup of background applications and not the applications themselves, no? Skype didn't respect this and puts it an update away from being switched back on.

I didn't think his tone was being condescending and superior but I may have missed it. But then again, I care more about the topic than the tone one uses.

I've had to use Microsoft teams for university lectures and I've faced the same issue. I hadn't bothered to solve it thinking I'll get rid of it as soon as the situation gets back to normal, but there are legitimate issues here that you easily dismiss with your comment.

- Microsoft teams shouldn't _by default_ autostart on my computer.

- Microsoft teams should respect the platform's settings (KDE autostart settings).

These issues are not negated by having a button in settings that stops this irritating behavior.

I have found the new Skype UI to be unbearably bad. I can't navigate it to save my own life. It's quite possible he just overlooked it.

If a software doesn't use standard features tondo standard stuff, and in the end forces users to go through wild goose chases, then obviously there is a problem with the software.

"Tried to be p2p".

Most of the time, our routers/APs defeated that. Skype would 'fall back' to using a server, which I believe it did 90% of the time.

It's relatively cheap in terms of raw hosting cost, but quite expensive in terms of maintenance / development effort, because p2p tends to be signficantly more complex than server-based.

This expense is upfront (unlike hosting cost which tends to only ramp up along with your platform's success), so it makes it a difficult space to enter.

Jitsi for example is making a good effort, but the quality/performance/stability still leaves something to be desired largely because it leans heavily on browsers to implement some parts of the complexities, and browser implementations are inconsistent / have bugs that the Jitsi devs aren't able to easily fix across the board.

> I don't understand why most of those alternatives have a hard time becoming more popular.

I think things are improving over time, but for a very long time "Skype Call" and "Video Call" meant the same thing in people's heads. Your product name appearing the dictionary as a synonym for the thing it does is a pretty powerful tool in customer acquisition and retention.

Now that I think about it Keybase autostarting has never bothered me at all, but I recently installed the alpha release of teams for Linux and I have just been waiting for the time to tinker and find a way to disable it autostarting. Says a lot about my trust for each.

Next time you could check msconfig on the Services tab, or else services.msc.

Pulse VPN continues to be actively exploited in the wild.

https://www.us-cert.gov/ncas/alerts/aa20-010a

Openconnect can also be used as pulse client

I feel like the author probably isn't a native English writer, so maybe give them a break.

Good point and one I overlooked until you pointed that out. Let's leave genders at the door. A bad vendor is a monster without a gender.

Fair enough, but FYI: In some languages, _all_ nouns are genderized and there isn't a gender-neutral form. e.g. in Arabic, "table" is grammatically female, while in Hebrew, it's grammatically male.

If you keep getting downvoted, why don't you get a clue?

You say it's just a polite suggestion, but you describe alternatives to your suggestion as a "nasty" habit - is it really polite?

It's a slippery slope to eir/em/..etc and other "new" pronouns; The latest thinking is you have to ask someone what their pronouns are, and they can insist on pretty much any fad pronoun they want, or else you'll be accused of anything between "being rude" to "hate-crime" (lot of motte-bailey around this). It's probably no wonder people want to keep things simple and stick to convention.

In other words, this simple way might get a lot more traction, if it wasn't a gateway / stepping-stone to a worse way.

I don't disagree with being inclusive, I disagree with the idea that grammatical details of how we speak have anything to do with inclusiveness.

It's like if I start complaining that you use "their" to refer to a software vendor because that implies there's more than one person involved and so you're not being inclusive of solo founders. Or that "their" antromorphizes a vendor and therefore isn't inclusive of sea cucumbers.

In reality, this has zero consequence to anyone, other than guys who enjoy feeling offended on behalf of others.

EDIT: I'm finding a lot of pearls in your comment history. Like this one where you complain of people telling you what to do https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23006925 Now you know how we feel, I guess.

As I mentioned in another comment, singular “they” is now standards compliant.

‘The singular “they” is a generic third-person singular pronoun in English. Use of the singular “they” is endorsed as part of APA Style because it is inclusive of all people and helps writers avoid making assumptions about gender. Although usage of the singular “they” was once discouraged in academic writing, many advocacy groups and publishers have accepted and endorsed it, including Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary.

‘Singular “they” is covered in Section 4.18 of the APA Publication Manual, Seventh Edition’

https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/grammar/si....

I do think this topic is something it doesn't hurt to be mindful of. However, it's pretty clear to me that the author's first language is not English. One of my mother tongues has gendered pronouns, and I find one of the simplest tells that a speaker's native tongue isn't English is the inappropriate usage of gendered pronouns. In fact I don't recall a single time I've heard a native English speaker use gendered pronouns in this manner (not to mention a company is a collection of people -- so there isn't even a singular "they" discussion to be had here).

So my main issue with this discussion topic is not that we shouldn't use more inclusive pronouns generally, it's these discussions seem to always ignore that folks whose mother tongue has gendered pronouns automatically think about objects differently when talking about them. For instance, a table being masculine (at least in my mother tongue) is not a conscious judgement of tables on the speaker's part -- it's a kind of classification that your brain does on autopilot. It should just be seen as the garden variety grammatical slip-up that it is, and treat it as such (ignore it and move on).