mcpackieh

This hasn't been implemented because none of the people who value Linux and have the technical skills to implement this care about fingerprint readers, nor care to support people who do. If you don't like that, then do it yourself or pay somebody else to do it for you.

Simply put: The intersection of "values Linux", "has the technical chops to implement it" and "thinks using fingerprints is actually a good idea" is an empty set.

Maybe some people in this thread think they're in that intersection, but I don't think anybody actually is.

I thought it was green bubbles which are shunned. In any case, it seems like a good way to get vain and vapid people to self-select their way out of your life. Would you really want to be friends with the sort of people who exclude others for consumer choices like that? Dreadful.

Playing deliberately obnoxious music to a captive audience? Yeah that's a CIA torture technique. Unironically.

Istagram is an American country, so it should probably be considered to be counter to the national interests of any country other than America and maybe America's close strategic allies. Particularly, if you're the leader of a country America considers to be a strategic rival, then you should definitely give serious consideration to blocking American social media.

Personally I think it's bad for America too, but it's unlikely that they're deliberately inflicting damage to America in an act of information/culture warfare. But other countries, particularly America's rivals, would be wise to assume that's what is happening to them.

Probably they're interpreting your first question as "would it be reasonable for me to offer this for sale for $5?" They may not be personally interested in buying it but can still tell you whether a price seems fair or not.

For instance, I think it would probably be fair for you to sell your car for the blue book value... but I'm not offering to buy your car. I don't need another.

> USPS package texts

Try reporting it directly to the US Postal Inspector. From: https://www.uspis.gov/news/scam-article/smishing-package-tra...

> Have you received unsolicited mobile text messages with an unfamiliar or strange web link that indicates a USPS delivery requires a response from you? If you never signed up for a USPS tracking request for a specific package, then don’t click the link! This type of text message is a scam called smishing.

> To report USPS related smishing, send an email to spam@uspis.gov.

> Without clicking on the web link, copy the body of the suspicious text message and paste into a new email.*

> Provide your name in the email, and also attach a screenshot of the text message showing the phone number of the sender and the date sent.*

> Include any relevant details in your email, for example: if you clicked the link, if you lost money, if you provided any personal information, or if you experienced any impacts to your credit or person.

> The Postal Inspection Service will contact you if more information is needed.

> Forward the smishing/text message to 7726 (this will assist with reporting the scam phone number).

If all the other contributors had signed over their copyright to the original author, then the author or whoever he sells the copyright to could release future versions under a different license. Copyright assignment is often done (for instance, with official GNU projects) because it makes license enforcement easier. However it also makes re-licensing easier. As far as I know, other contributors to these projects never signed over their copyright, so the original authors can't sell that code to this company in the first place. Since the company doesn't own that code, they can only use it under the terms of the GPL.

With liberal licenses (BSD, etc), the license permits distributing binaries without releasing the code so re-licensing isn't even necessary. Any corp can take the code and make it proprietary in full compliance with the original license.

The packages from F-Droid are signed with F-Droid's keys, so AFAIK the Play Store can't overwrite them without prompting the user to remove and replace the F-Droid versions. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this point.

Have fun trying to sue an Israeli malware company into compliance. The reason so many malware companies operate out of Israel is because the Israeli government shields them from consequences.

From what I gather, the author isn't re-licensing the code but is selling their copyright and brand (trademark?) to Zipo, who in turn will probably try to re-license it (without permission from other contributors) or will simply choose to violate the license.

Your links suggest that the attribution of the discovery of this phenomenon to a Cambridge researcher is an urban legend. But l33tman's comment doesn't make that claim, he only says that words scrambled in this way are easy to read (and they are, I read his comment effortlessly.)

You're missing a big part of the equation: the leopard exists in places where developers can push updates directly to users with minimal if any oversight from commercially independent reviewers. Debian and F-Droid build packages from source given to them by the developers, they don't trust developer builds. Therefore even though these Simple apps have sold to a malware company, that company won't be able to push updates to users. On platforms where this leopard is common, there may be some lip service paid to review but it's almost always completely automated or performed by low-skill contract labor who have no personal commitment to the process.

Another aspect of leopard territory is API churn. On Android and to a lesser extent browser extensions, regular rebuilds are necessary to keep the application up to date. This sometimes necessitates reworking parts of the application, not just rebuilding it. This recurring chore places a constant burden on developers, they can't "finish" an application then forget about it and move on with their lives; doing so would see their work vanish. On the other hand, on GNU/Linux desktops it's perfectly feasible to "finish" an application and leave it unmaintained for 15 years, people will still be able to use it. And on Android with F-Droid, most of the burden of rebuilding applications to keep them running is taken on by F-Droid volunteers, reducing the burnout pressure on application developers.

The conclusion is simple: Strict separation of the developer and packager/distributor roles keeps the leopard away.

F-Droid works like the Debian repos: F-Droid builds are not built by the developer, they are built by F-Droid volunteers from source. They don't accept pre-built applications.

Somehow this leopard only exists on systems like Android and Google Play Store or web browser extension stores, but notably not in places like F-Droid or the repos of any common GNU/Linux distribution.

"Leopard eats face" is a dumb reddit thought-terminating cliche. I invite you to actually think about the problem and ask yourself why developers of FOSS tools selling out happens in some domains but not others, and effects some users without warning but not others.

> They even secretly had nuclear warheads on the Nike Atlas missiles there to take out incoming bombers where the missiles were less accurate.

I think you mean Nike Ajax, although Ajax missiles adapted for nuclear warheads were actually called Nike Hercules.

"Yeah there's a lot of smoke, but I'm not going to evacuate until I see flames"

The writing is on the wall, why are you so keen to wait til the last minute?

I don't think either of these are examples of websites that might plausibly be holding Firefox back from mainstream adoption. I was expecting something like "[popular feature] of facebook or youtube doesn't work"

Trezor is... a crypto hardware wallet? I can't imagine this sort of thing is popular enough to block firefox from mainstream adoption.

The pixel repair site is an interesting example, but AFAIK, Pixel phones have about 2% of the US market share and this website is only useful to a small number of those users (those who encounter a serious error) and isn't something even those users would be using often. If I had to use this website and couldn't get my phone fixed another way, I could install and use Chrome (or I presume another Chromium browser) and use it for this single purpose. It would take me only a few minutes/hours(?) and then I'd be done with it. Why would a site like this keep me using Chrome permanently? I just can't imagine that.

5. Too much ego to admit they've been wrong for years when they told Firefox advocates that there was nothing wrong with using Chrome, that the advertising corporation with monopoly power was actually benevolent and wouldn't abuse their market position.

Can you defend the proposition that Firefox isn't a viable browser for lack of these APIs by listing popular websites that won't work without them?

Serious question, because I can't think of any.

> What on earth are you on about?

The UK's libel laws scared off journalists who wanted to blow the whistle on Jimmy Savile. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/apr/28/jimmy-savile... https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/nationals/savile-story...

Your comment is completely out of line and violates the commenting guidelines. Are you trying to be ironic or something?

If they've learned anything, they haven't put those lessons into practice. Wealthy abusers continue to use the UK's accuser-biased libel laws to silence those who speak out (falsely accusing them of libel in a system that is rigged against the little guys.)

I invited him to clarify his remarks and he has not chosen to do so. Being deliberately vague when criticizing democracy is a bad look but whatever he really believes is evidently even worse.

What then? A non-democratic republic, e.g. a dictatorship of a committee? A monarchy, which is little more than a dictatorship crossed with religion/tradition?

Yes, if only we made you dictator and subjected ourselves to your capricious whims, you would surely rule over us benevolently and somehow stop the foreign scammers from conning our grandmothers. Sounds like a great plan!

bcachefs's caching (foreground_target, promote_target, background_target) seems more straight forward than ZFS's ZIL/L2ARC stuff since with bcachefs you can use the same device for accelerating writes and reads of frequently accessed files, while (from what I understand) with ZFS you need two partitions, one for each. I'm not a ZFS expert by any means so maybe I've got the wrong ideas, but bcachefs seems a lot more elegant and straight forward in many regards. Still, I'm not jumping to adopt a brand new filesystem.

The idea isn't to pander to the majority, but to include facts that at least a substantial minority believe are relevant even if most people think those facts aren't relevant. This would not make the majority feel pandered to, it would probably make most people believe the article isn't ideologically aligned with them which is the entire point. Democrats would say "why the hell is the article mentioning that Chicago is controlled by Democratic politicians? That's not relevant!" And Republicans would say "why the hell is the article mentioning that America's gun violence rate far exceeds that of other developed countries, that isn't relevant!" However in both cases they would have to concede that the article did include the facts they personally believe relevant (those facts which the other objects to) even though it also included irrelevant facts. This isn't pandering, this is impartially reporting the facts that some significant fraction of people might believe to be relevant while at the same time not conforming to their preferred narrative by omitting facts inconvenient to their narrative.

You can't pander to both at the same time. What you can do, and typically is done, is pander to one or the other by conforming to one narrative or the other, choosing or omitting facts according to the needs of one narrative or the other. That is pandering.

I have been more than satisfied with single-drive Btrfs with OpenSUSE so far, but nevertheless I can't wait for bcachefs to prove itself. On paper at least, bcachefs seems like the most attractive of the three.

I think it's because on an individual basis, attributing cancers to a particular cause is very difficult. It's only when you're dealing with large populations that statistical trends become damning (as happened with cigarettes), otherwise it's usually very difficult to point to a specific kid and say his cancer came from a specific business.