I've been using Firefox on android for over a decade, including for YouTube, and maybe once a year I encounter a problem where I need to use Chrome for a specific website.
We're only discussing one particular website, though, aren't we?
Except for on the TV (where I use SmartTube), all of my Youtube activity is done with web browsers.
Otherwise: On both big computers and with my pocket supercomputer alike, that means Firefox and uBlock Origin. It works quite well for navigating Youtube's website and watching videos.
An old iPad that I have suffers from Apple's deliberately baked-in lack of choice, but it does handle Youtube's website very well with Safari and AdBlock.
It has been a very long time since I've used Youtube's app on any device at all.
If a company wants to sell you something, but wants to block access to information, the default position for everyone should be "it's probably because it's bad".
If I have an investment fund and I refuse to tell you about the current performance, I hope you would be sceptical.
If I try to sell you medicine and redact the information about whether it does what I claim, and block you from seeing how many people were poisoned from taking it, I hope that everyone would refuse to take it.
The insanity I'm seeing here from Tesla defenders is amazing. I can only assume they've fully bought in to the vision and tied assets to it and refuse to acknowledge that they might lose everything.
How? I thought it was a Patreon thing - the "competing platform" would be competing with the Patreon app.
I'm not familiar with Patreon, but I thought the way it worked was that you could tip content creators via the Patreon app. I'm pretty certain that Apple cannot tell Patreon (a third party) that they are only allowed to offer exclusive content.
Apple doesn’t allow you to mention that you have alternate payment channels on other platforms. Can’t even allude to it.
To me this is the thing that should be outlawed. Let people pay the Apple tax if they want, but don’t prevent people from making other arrangements. Most people are lazy and will pay the tax, if it isn’t excessive.
Loads of people trusted Huawei, even after all the hyperbole about backdoors for the government. It needed regulators banning Huawei to knock their share of the market and protect the homegrown spyware.
The government bans on Huawei were obviously do to three reasons: network security, economic competition, and politics.
Huawei doesn’t only make phones — they also make the cell network infrastructure and they sell it at much lower costs than American companies do. The US put pressure on allied countries to divest from Huawei infrastructure (especially 5G cell networking) to both avoid the security risks and to leave those allies with only American companies to buy from.
And we can’t forget that Trump very publicly used Huawei’s executive as a hostage to a negotiation.[1]
And was also the one that was contradicted the most as they were sharing all the source code, and several areas of national security reviewed it, including GCHQ, giving it the clear.
Politics and trying to stop an economic competitor from taking business away from overpriced alternatives was the real unspoken reason.
> to leave those allies with only American companies to buy from
This is conspiratorial nonsense, the EU has Sweden's Ericsson and Finland's Nokia and along with South Korea's Samsung there are plenty of choices. I can't actually think of comparable American companies.
They can make great phones and still be spying on the user and everyone near them.
They wouldn't be good for intel gathering (either deliberate or incidental, c.f. FitBit or whatever leaking some US military info because of all the soldiers tracking themselves) if they weren't also just straight up good products.
This lack of exclusivity between "quality" and "spying" is also why I found it hard to trust US products even before Trump 2.
I guess it comes down to "does the government that is spying on me, want me to succeed in general or fail in general?"
As a British citizen living in Berlin, running US software on Chinese hardware (iPhone? Made in China; Kindle? Made in China; MacBook Pro? Made in China; random torches? Made in China; PV? Made in China), it's kinda hard for me to guess who is doing what spying and what they care about with that spying.
> running XFCE on Wayland is going to make it slower
Citation. None of the other desktops have slowed with Wayland, and gaming is as fast as, if not marginally faster on KDE/Gnome with Wayland vs LXDE on X.
Latency and throughput are very different things. However, it's worth noting that the comparison here is with and without compositing. If you were using compositing already on X11 (I believe XFCE offers it with "Desktop Effects" or something to that tune) then you've already been eating compositing latency, and you should actually get less latency in some situations.
But as far as it performing worse overall, I don't think that would be expected. Compositing itself does lean more on hardware acceleration to provide a good experience, though, so if you compare it on a machine that has no hardware accelerated graphics with compositing disabled, then it really would be worse, yeah.
Little misconception here (beware i'm using xlibre and causal user). On X11 you can find two mechanisms which can be called compositor :
1st: "enable display compositing" option - this one increases latency as every window draw need go though compositor application (in nutshell it exchanging opengl textures - only synchronization messages goes over "wire")
2nd: the Xserver rendering pipeline compositor, this one goes with modesetting (intel, amdgpu) driver TearFree option - almost everything inside X11 server in OpenGL textures and compositor perform direct blending to screen (including direct scanout).
What I want to tell, on modern X (there are merge requests for Xorg server to modesetting driver, amdgpu have this code) with TearFree enabled you by default optimal hardware acceleration - there comes lower latency
The problem here is that you are cherry picking examples of successful technology.
The inverse would be to list off Theranos, Google Stadia, and other failed tech and claim that people said that there was massive steps that subsequently didn't materialise. In fact a lot of times it was mostly fabricated by people with stuff to gain from ripping off VCs.
Look at how bad it is with Microsoft in Windows despite their "all in on AI".
Ultimately no one really knows how it will pan out, and if we will end up with Enron or an Apple. Or even if it's a combination of a successful tech that ultimately is mishandled by corporations and fails, or a limited tech that regardless captures the imagination through pop culture and takes over.
> There's literally nothing worth paying for in that upgrade.
Well there is the violations of Fitts law with the movement of the start button to the centre of the bar?
But it does make it look slightly more Mac! They should make sure the next upgrade moves the corner to grab away from the actual corner, and that the cursor change for grabbing it doesn't always trigger if they want to really rip it off.
> And because the default Windows interface isn’t designed for a handheld screen, we built our own Mobile UI from the ground up to make Windows far easier to navigate on a phone.
Now this I don't understand.
Microsoft literally made a Windows Phone, and made so many people angry with Windows 8.
Did they literally anger people and then throw all that work away? If it's just squares on the screen, surely having an alternative Explorer mode that presents like 8 or Phone makes sense.
That seems insane to burn all that good will and then not keep any of that dev work in the background for future iterations.
reply