This response is offensive in its ignorance
370 karma · joined January 17, 2013
> you can’t complain the code isn’t open source
</pedantry>
> - Make sure it looks the exact same across all browsers
> How doable is it with vanilla css?
"Make sure it looks the exact same across all browsers" is, and always has been, fundamentally at odds with how the web is intended to work.
How well does this shadcn crap render in arachne? ladybird? netsurf? links? dillo? netscape 3? The latest version of chrome with user styles applied?
When you say "exactly the same", I assume you mean that the design only uses black and white, because some people might have black and white monitors, right? But you're also going to use amber-on-black because some people might have amber screen monitors, right? How do you plan on ensuring it looks exactly the same on a braille terminal?
Maybe you think I'm being silly. Because nobody uses monochrome monitors in 2026, right? So it's safe to ignore that and put an asterisk next to "exactly the same" (And also just forget that e-ink is a thing that exists).
(Just like how it was safe in 2006 to assume people would always have 800x600 or bigger displays, and nobody would ever come along using a screen with, say, 480×320 resolution)
What measures have you taken to ensure that your colours appear exactly the same across a bunch of different types/brands of monitors that render colours differently? Or, perhaps we should just add another asterisk next to "exactly the same"?
I could go on.
How many asterisks is acceptable before "exactly the same" isn't a thing anymore?
If "exactly the same on all browsers" is one of your goals, you are wrong. If your designer tells you that's what they want, they are wrong. If you ever tell a client that's what you're providing, you are wrong.
If all of the enforcement bodies and normal legal peaceful channels available to you don’t agree with your assessment there is probably a “why”
> if you are disabling all signals from your mobile device, what’s the point of even carrying it?
2. Being able to switch it back on if I need to access a network for some reason.
(not that you're wrong about leaving it at home being a good option)
> You know that moment when you’re chatting with a friend about needing new sneakers and then like magic, every app you open is suddenly plastered with shoe ads?
It’s like having a guest room in your house. The app can visit, but it doesn’t get to rearrange your furniture or go through your mail.
Having tested dozens of privacy focused devices over the years, from GrapheneOS phones to Purism’s Librem 5. I can tell you that hardware based privacy switches are the gold standard.
It's really really not a new sentiment.
From the description on this 14-year-old video:
An older song, from back in the days of XP and OS X.3.I've always held that switching to Linux is hardest for the most technical people, because you know how to do everything already - figuring out how to do X in Linux might take you literally hours, or you can just reboot into windows, where you know how to do it and it will take 5 minutes. It's hard to make that investment in learning the new stuff when you just want to get stuff done.
(But IMHO it's well worth it - For >15 years I've always been appalled every time I've used windows about how inflexible and unconfigurable it is. There's a thousand things that I've been doing forever that I'm just so used to, e.g the ability to make any window always on top, or to use my mouse wheel to roll them up so that only the titlebar shows. There's lots of things like that that I use every day without thinking about it, and the lack of those things makes windows extremely frustrating for me)
> I'll also create a feature request for resizing/stacking of rows.
Keep in mind that in the foss world you're not a customer - the people doing the work will be donating their free time to build a feature you're asking for, so please be nice and polite to them - the worst thing you can do on a feature request is have an entitled tone, or insinuate that their software is crap because it doesn't quite do what you want :)
Someone else suggested that adding 2 xfce panels might accomplish something pretty close to what you're after. I had a bit of a play around and agree with that. I didn't replicate your request exactly (because my panel is very different and I didn't want to break my setup too much) but depending on where your priorities lie I think you could probably get something pretty close.
Options that are similar:
a) If you really want the 'start menu' button to span both rows, use a single panel and set "row size" to e.g 48px and "number of rows" to 2. The con of this method is that the task list (list of programs) will span both rows, which is not what you have.
b) If you want to replicate your preferred setup more closely, you might not be able to have the 'start menu' button span both rows. To accomplish this I would add 2 panels of e.g 24px and put them both at the bottom of the screen. In one you'll have the task list and in another you'll have icons.
The media player controls might be an issue in xfce. I'm not sure if anything like that exists. However you definitely can have a systray icon for your media player which pops up media controls when you click on it.
There are other docks with more customisable widgets that will give you media controls like those, but I can't really make a solid recommendation for you unfortunately. The one I used to use was called cairo-dock, but I think that might be dead. Before that I used one called avant-window-navigator. There's also a couple of others that I'm aware of, e.g tint2 and wbar.
I'd be a little bit surprised if there are zero docks out there that can do what you want. The thing is you might have to try screwing around with the config for 20 different ones if you insist on replicating that layout exactly :/
HTH!
(and assuming you don't have millions of dollars handy to put towards this goal - I could probably build you something pretty OK, but the cost might get into tens of millions or more depending on how many nines you want on that "chance of it existing in 100 years" figure)
I also agree with others who say "print out multiple redundant copies and put them in filing cabinets and/or bank vaults". This is probably the most reliable way to have a high probability of it lasting that long without spending a lot.
The core issue that you're going to have is that it's impossible to predict whether any institution you might trust to hold on to the data will still exist in 100 years. Having multiple copies on multiple redundant hosts gives you a higher chance, but it's still not possible to say what that chance is. And that's before we start thinking about things like climate change and the water wars everyone loves to predict.
I'm in the top 5% of all seti@home contributors. I'm in the top 2000 overall and I'm in the top 50 in Australia. According to boincstats I Accumulated more credit than 99.90166% of all SETI@Home Users - 28.91 quintillion floating-point operations. I think that's a lot.
I was sad when seti@home shut down. My CPU fans were not.
(and just to head off your next comment, no, it's not my choice, because I happen to like food and shelter)
Thanks for playing
So to be clear, you're saying that you've spoken to the management at my company and convinced them to switch away from redhat?
If you could post a link to a copy of the email from the higher-ups, just so I have it in writing, that'd be rad. Thanks! :)
May I suggest Xephyr, which will give you the X11 sandboxing that wayland people like to claim is impossible under X, using tech that's been around for about 20 years.
And you won't even need to replace your entire software stack with incompatible beta-quality software.
No, the orignal developers judged that they couldn't be bothered saving it. This has no relationship with whether it can be saved.
> Any extra effort on X11 might help to buy more time, but will in the end be for nothing. And in this time of supply-chain attacks, vs-code plugins, npm packages, agents and what-not, X11 is just too dangerous
Wow, this is some impressive vague fearmongering. Please explain what npm packages, vs-code plugins, and "agents" have to do with X11 being "just too dangerous"?
Here, I'll try one:
"Even in 2026 the developer of the i3 window manager says wayland isn't ready for real use. Any effort poured into wayland might delay it's inevitable collapse but in these days of nodejs, rising authoritarianism, and climate change it's clear that it will never actually gain wide acceptance"
For example there's tons of legacy cruft in there intended for working with hardware that hasn't been in use since circa 1992. Things like monochrome 3D displays with weird resolutions like 1200x240 and non-square pixels. Having that stuff in there makes supporting more modern hardware more difficult than it needs to be (and is also part of the reason behind why e.g eliminating tearing is very difficult), and it adds huge complexity to the codebase for no benefit on modern systems, which makes it much more difficult (but NOT impossible, as some love to claim) to maintain.
There's also the wayland fanboy's go-to criticism: there are also some security shortcomings in the protocol. You can find details on this shortcoming which I have never in 30 years seen exploited in the opening paragraphs of every pro-wayland article on the internet. (it is a legit shortcoming. There have been multiple suggestions on how to address it over the decades without starting over from scratch. xlibre is working on one of these)
But over the years I've slowly become more and more convinced that the biggest issue people have with X is that it's not shiny and new.
I'm expecting them to announce a rewrite in rust any day now ;)
So you've managed to get redhat to commit to continue to package an X server, then? I'm impressed by this achievement and send my thanks for your efforts - they've been trying to drop it for a while now, it's only wayland's continuing status as unusable vapourware that stops them.
No. Wayland still has hilariously terrible bugs and can't adequately do very basic things we have been doing for ~30 years on X, even in 2026, and because it's not compatible with anything it requires ditching all your stable, well-tested, solid software that you've been using for decades to replace it with incompatible software that doesn't work half the time.
To summarise the summary: it's in pretty much the same place as it was in 2025. And 2020. And 2016.
2. "How would you do in this situation, to have the video stream in the browser, with as low CPU usage as possible?"
Since it's being consumed on (only) the local machine you've got an excellent situation where you can use any obscure codec you like, as long as the browser you're using supports it. Also you don't need to care at all about network bandwidth. If minimising CPU usage is the #1 priority then something fairly lightweight like mjpeg might do the trick. Alternatively you might get away with not compressing the video at all (but this might cause issues due to dealing with huge amounts of data). If I wanted to minimise CPU usage, I wouldn't be doing it in python.
3. You can find me if you look.
It depends. I have many questions.
> My goal is to minimize CPU usage on the computer. Would h264 compression be a good thing here given source and destination are the same machine?
No.
> Other ideas?
1. Why does it need to be displayed in a web browser (as opposed to more appropriate / better performing software specifically built for video)?
2. via what interface/library is the camera connected to the machine? What format/codec is the uncompressed stream you're getting from the camera?
3. I am available at very reasonable consulting rates
> God knows what process led them to do video streaming for showing their AI agent work in the first place.