esclerofilo

In practice, the difference is that consoles tend to be sold at loss, they wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the 30% cut. And in my experience, another big difference was that when I had consoles, I could easily borrow my friend's games, or buy cheaper games used. I don't know how it works with digital goods on modern consoles, but Steam actually has a feature to lend your library to a friend, so there's precedent.

Actually, yes, there's an open source "Pass for iOS" app.

Not that I recommend this setup though.

This is about isolation in OS processes, not browser containers.

Sorry, I didn't see it

Although I agree that this is the likely reason, it is a bit outdated. ARM made a standardized boot requirements document last year, it's now up to the SoCs to implement it.

I believe Microsoft Flight Simulator does this (and it has VR support). It gets a bit tiring to see the same trees on every place on earth, though.

This sounds like a very "faster horses" kind of comment.

Simply put, with SSDs you are trading the convenience of having faster boot times for essentially everything: HDDs have (a lot) more space, lower prices, longer lifespans.

Simply put, with electric cars you are trading the convenience of charging at home for essentially everything: Gas has higher range, maintenance is easier to find, filling your tank takes 2 minutes instead of hours and that tank's capacity doesn't diminish over time.

Simply put, with screens you are trading the convenience of not having to deal with paper for essentially everything: Printers have better resolution, paper is easier on your eyes, it's more portable.

I guess people just like convenience.

Fragmentation and walled gardens are a false dichotomy. Steam is actually a great example of this, there are many other stores (Humble Bundle, Fanatical, GMG, whatever) that sell you Steam keys so you can keep your game library in one comfortable place.

Unfortunately, many patents are intentionally written to make them as broad as possible, minimizing the possibility of designing alternatives.

Someone from outside the US will probably worry more about its history of backing coups than the domestic problems you mentioned. If the US puts a Pinochet in my country and their algorithms say I'm likely to be a communist sympathizer, am I at risk?

The ARM business model isn't that profitable. Intel's market cap right now is about 240 billion, 6 times the amount Nvidia is paying for ARM.

You're mixing up intelligence with morality, or something similar to morality. Just because some interfaces are bad and the company is anti-competitive doesn't mean using it is a dumb choice, you have to weigh up the pros and cons.

Perhaps it's an axiom that the open alternative is better in the long run, but that's too long a run to really care.

Yes and no. The problem is those standard designs have to please a very wide spectrum of customers, so in a lot of the tradeoffs in chip design (like area vs performance) they tend to lean more towards keeping area small. The Cortex X1 is supposed to change that, though, but it's very new.

Minor correction: The mac mini isn't fanless

I think they are to blame. Qualcomm is one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) manufacturer of ARM chips, yet they still simply use reference designs. Besides, for the next flagship (Snapdragon 888) they switched to Samsung 5nm (inferior to TSMC 5nm) and they're not even using the ARM-recommended 8MB L3 cache, but staying with 4MB.

It seems benchmarks for tha SoC aren't bad, but it really shows that they aren't really trying to catch up to Apple.

(My source is https://www.anandtech.com/show/16271/qualcomm-snapdragon-888...)

If you make a different enough product, you don't need to have similar prices to your competitors.

Now it is how it works for embedded processors[1], I see no reason why that can't "tricle up" to the more powerful ones.

[1]: https://techcrunch.com/2019/10/08/arm-brings-custom-instruct...

This sounds like you would actually _like_ the incompleteness of most linux window managers. On i3 you don't get update notifications, because by default notifications don't work!

A Bloom Filter[1] could be used as a lighter alternative. You probably have at least one of those in your disk now.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom_filter

I do willingly opt-out of the Apple platform. However, if I lived in the US, I would be forced to buy an iPhone, because of the (you guessed it) propietary lock-in that is iMessage.

Regulation is necessary.

A Pinebook is probably the closest you can get to a Pi-book, and it already exists.

Did you read the comment? What do you do when you have multiple windows of the same app? Do you write the name of said program and then Alt-backtick until you get to the correct window? Wouldn't it be better to have your windows grouped in a way more related to their purpose than to the app?

For example, say you're doing something (eg programming) that requires both the browser and the terminal. While you're at that, you want to do something that also requires both the browser and terminal (eg checking something in a terminal-based todo app to reply something to your coworkers in a web based chat app). Assuming you leave these things open, you now have to do 2 switches (app switch+tab/window switch) to get to whatever you're looking for in the worst case, 1.5 switches on average.

On desktop? They are working on it:

https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/eay1x1/firefox_73_...

I don't know enough about mozilla's process to understand why bugzilla says it's already done, though.

This comment is written in a very aggressive way, but if you read it from another angle, the point still stands. My family buys Apple _because_ that way they lose control over the device. They trust that Apple will control those devices better than they would, it's one less thing to think about.

The ads parent is seeing are not actually for shitty apps (as long as Apple does a decent job in app curation). They are part of the customer delight strategy, by making customers think "Cool, I didn't know my phone could be used for that".

Because there are lots of things a computer can do comfortably that a phone, tablet or chromebook can't.

Sometimes there can be tradeoffs between convenience and security, but in the case of an app store the convenience actually enhances the security, because it diminishes the chance of people running random harmful commands from the Web.

I hate snap as much as anyone, but it may not be as hard as you think: <https://ubuntu.com/blog/howto-host-your-own-snap-store>

There is a substantive difference in WPA Enterprise configuration. When connecting with Gnome there are so many options I have to check a screenshot of the correct ones every time I configure it (which I've done 5ish times because of distro hopping+changing my password). On an iphone, all you need to do is write your username and password, then press the "trust certificate" button.

Not the parent, but here's my thoughts:

The size and quantity of companies working on things related to a project determines whether a strong copyleft license or a permissive license makes the project more successful

Say you want to make a business around a FOSS project. Which license should you choose for that project?

If your business starts gaining traction, people may realize it's a good business opportunity, and create companies that compete against you.

I'll simplify to two licenses, GPL and MIT. Then there's two options, based on which one you chose originally:

1) If you chose the GPL, then you can be sure that no competitor will get to use your code without allowing you to use theirs too. You can think of this as protection, ensuring no other company can make a product that's better than yours without starting from scratch. Because everyone is forced to publish their changes, your product will get better the more competition you have. However, your competitors will always be just a little behind you because you can't legally deny them access to the code.

2) OTOH if you chose MIT, a competitor can just take your project, make a proprietary improved version of it and drive you out of the market. The upside is if you get to be big enough, you can do exactly that to _your_ competitors.

You can see that when you are a small company the benefits of GPL outweigh the cons, but for big ones it's more convenient to use MIT or other permissive licenses. In fact, I think the answer to your question "why is the use of GNU GPL licenses declining?" is because tech companies tend to be bigger than before.

Now say you want to make a business around some already existing software. And say there's two alternative versions of that software, one under the GPL and one under the MIT license (for example, Linux and BSD). Which one should base your business on? And contribute to? Well, it's the same logic as before.

Which is an implementation of S

qutebrowser had a keybinding for opening things in vim IIRC