I don't see the web the same as I see operating systems. Linux / Windows you have to specifically install and set up on your systems (or buy pre-installed, whatever). The web is just...there, already set up and your system goes and looks it up. I'm simplifying for the comment, I know the web itself runs on different systems, I'm speaking for the end-user and for web-developers.

And how much of the software ecosystem is built on top of browser engines these days? As you know, a huge swathe of all mobile apps and an unnecessarily big chunk of desktop software as well are built with web technology and rely on browser engines to provide the "runtime". Browsers are almost like operating systems on top of operating systems now. Even more true on ChromeOS and specialized stuff like LG's WebOS.

I can't really agree with your view of the web in general, from any viewpoint but especially that of a developer. The times when IE was the only platform that mattered were horrible for web developers. There's no reason to believe it'd be any different the next time around. I'm glad Mozilla (and others) saved us from that nightmare.

Having one main web "system" (browser in this case) that everyone tests against and builds against, to me, is just better than having to go and test the same thing across many different browser engines.

That's what standards are for. But if there's only one dominant implementation provider, they're free to ignore standards and break their implementations as they see fit, as everyone has to adjust to their quirks anyway. We've seen this happen.

And now, having Chromium be a little less "just Google" with actual support for others getting involved - this is better for everyone in the end. We all want to rely on Google less for various reasons, this is a step in the right direction for that.

This we can agree on. Although Meta and Microsoft aren't exactly names I trust either when it comes to important stuff like privacy and business ethics.

I have no idea what Opera does these days. I used their browser back before Phoenix / Firebird / Firefox took that spot.

Oh, and every-time i use Firefox, I always end up going back to Chrome. I just never have a good experience with Firefox personally.

My experiences are the opposite (and just as subjective as yours).

Plus, I've never subscribed to the thought of just having to support something (Firefox in this case) because it's smaller. Both Firefox and Chromium are open source.

Of course not. I'm arguing there's value in choice and competition for users, developers, and everyone else.

Besides, I don't trust any of these particular corporations to put any resources towards a feature or fix that only benefits the user. Their angle is and will always be to extract profit from us. And if there's no open source competition, they're even less cautious about stripping functionality that hinders their ability to exploit us. However, if another popular browser implements let's say popular privacy features to attract users, those are worth innovating / investing in to keep users from switching away.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Well, Linux isn't a niche market for decades now. It has more than 60% of market on servers and if you consider smartphones as well it is the most used (Android).

This is why I explicitly specified desktop Linux, in the context of market shares that Liam set in the comment I replied to. And I added that wink at the end of the sentence to indicate that I wasn't entirely serious about the comparison. I just thought it might resonate with Liam.

However, I was entirely serious about the rest of my comment. Monopolies are harmful to progress and innovation, even in the free software ecosystem. We might not be talking about traditional capitalistic markets here and it's not a zero-sum game, but competition and alternatives should be supported and encouraged, not dismissed.

Also, I prefer Firefox. :whistle:

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Why would they jump into supporting a browser that has a less than 3% share.

I suppose for the same reason you might want to support a desktop operating system that has a tiny market share. :wink:

This *should* be a net positive for everyone.

I don't see how this actually changes anything, but why would it be a net positive for everyone? I don't see how it makes anything better for those of us who don't like the idea of a single software platform growing so large and dominant that nobody bothers supporting anything else. We've seen where that leads.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

They'd better use fwupd for their updates, like 8bitsdo...

Sadly 8BitDo hasn't done that since early 2020.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

First of all, enforcement won't happen unless someone makes a complaint to a consumer protection authority. And even then, software gets more leeway than let's say hardware or electronic devices in general when it comes to level or duration of support.

1. Rocket League, which provided macOS and Linux versions in 2016, but cancelled them in 2020?

They offered refunds to every Linux player, no questions asked. I know, I was one of the people who refunded the game after hundreds of hours of playtime. That seems reasonable to me, and I feel like authorities would agree.

2. Portal 2, where the native version is broken on Wayland with fractional scaling?

That seems like a corner case that didn't even exist when Portal 2 was launched. It's an old game after all, and they still list Ubuntu 12.04 in the system requirements. :grin: I do get your point, but I doubt this would put them in trouble. Mostly due to the age of the game.

BTW: Does gamescope solve the problem? If it does, that seems like a reasonable fix.

3. Several unnamed indie games where the game won't launch because the library versions are too old/new?

Support doesn't have to be forever, unless that's what they promise. But you can make a complaint to the authorities if you feel scammed. I'd bet that these games would get a pass though, if they work on the specific distributions and hardware they promise to support, and there's a mechanism to request a refund if they do not. Usually they'd just get a warning to update their store pages with a clear disclaimer, and to provide a fix, a workaround or a refund to the complainant.

Unity just writes worse Vulkan calls than DXVK; nothing to be done.

I have a feeling authorities would consider Steam Play / Proton a reasonable workaround. I wouldn't, if I specifically buy a game for offering a native build as I am wont to do, but that's pure ideology and wouldn't actually stop me from playing.

PS: I'm no lawyer, just a consumer protection enthusiast. :grin:

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: pleasereadthemanualI agree that there should be a separate rating system that indicates the developer's level of support for the platform. But it should not be legally binding, because nobody would do it and I don't think it's fair.

Whatever level of support you promise at the time of purchase, you're bound to provide. Otherwise you'll be breaking consumer protection laws. At least in the EU. There's nothing Valve can do to make these promises legally non-binding, and I think that's how it should be.

Obviously limited support is fine (for software), as long as you disclose it properly on the store page.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Thanks Liam! Enjoy your well deserved break.

And happy holidays to the nicest bunch of gamers I've ever had the pleasure to interact with. I'm glad you all found Linux.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

The open world broom racing looks fun.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: clatterfordslimThe question is why are Xfce going with Wayland? I have used Xfce for years now and it is fine as it is. Why try to fix something that does not need fixing?

I get what you mean, but apparently X11 is almost unmaintainable at this point, with decades of technical debt. The fact that it was mainly X11 maintainers and developers who came up with Wayland in the first place, declaring X11 maintenance only, should lend credence to this idea. They should know what they're talking about, right? I didn't even see any controversy over this back then, seemed quite unanimous.

Oh and as the article states, Xfce apps will still be able to support X11 along with Wayland.

It's undeniable that Wayland has had a bumpy road (on desktop; I've been using it on my phones for a decade), but if the experts are to be believed, it'll end up being worth the pain. Not that it has even been painful for me personally: X11 has been serving me just fine.

When the day comes that they've finally ironed out the kinks and Wayland reaches proper feature parity, it comes with nice bonuses like properly tear-free displays even on multiple monitors with different refresh rates, proper colour management (and HDR), etc. Not to mention proper security. X11 has always been rather bad at that.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Craggles086So Wayfire is basically Compiz for Wayland yes?

Should add a lot to the default Xfce.

Compiz was a fun toy, added nothing useful to Xfce. If Wayfire is Compiz for Wayland, I suppose I can just ignore it? :wink:

On a more serious note: I'm glad Wayland support is finally progressing, but as long as my apps and games work fine on X11, I'm not too bothered. I just hope Xfce keeps being excellent at working how I expect it to work and getting out of my way.

The Thunar and Panel tweaks look nice.

View this comment - View article - View full comments