Especially since being immune to censorship is kind of the point of the fediverse.
If you're even a tiny bit smart about it, you can start hundreds of sock puppet instances and flood other instances with bullshit.
agressivelyPassive
joined 1 year ago
Not only cloud infrastructure, tons of industrial automation devices are more or less open on the Internet. Best case that's just a few minutes downtime in a factory, worst case someone fries the grid and destroys water treatment plants.
And even the actual applications being written for the government aren't that great. The lowest bidder gets the contract, and security is really easy to cheap out on, if you're doing just enough to not be legally liable - which isn't hard.
The older I get and the more insights in the inner workings of the technical infrastructure I get, the more I'm surprised we're not actively collapsing right now. It's scary how abysmal security is and it's scary how unprepared society is. Just as a hint: the European power grid spans the entire EU, Balkans, Turkey, Ukraine. There's no plan how to restart the grid, if it shuts down entirely. None. Complete terra incognita.
The clear answer is: don't use subversion. There's really no reason not to use git, since you can use git just like subversion if you want to.
Yes. And it's okay, but nothing to write home about.
I mean, it's a messenger. Nothing more. Don't overhype something that trivial.
Same. Teams isn't exactly good, but it works pretty okayish most of the time. I absolutely don't get the love for slack, it seems to be more like an "I use Arch, BTW" thing.
500nits according to the store.
Yes, I forgot that, it was a long day.
In general, one should check how much power actually costs versus buying a new device.
Even in Germany, having something draw 1W 24/7 costs something like 20 cents. It's really not worth the hassle or money to micro optimize and buy something like an SSD.
Ok, now I have to assume you're trolling.
Look at my comments above, that they're not the first is exactly my point. They re-invent things instead of investing a tenth of the effort in the existing solution and their solutions are worse.
And please don't come with that corporate apologetics. You make it seem like a corporation never makes any errors whatsoever and even the stupidest error isn't just stupidity, but corporate genius we mere mortals just don't understand. That's not the case. Canonical simply is not very good at this.
Yes, maybe they do have some products that do work and are actually better than the competition, but again, actually read my comments and you'll see that I already covered that.
Seriously, are you paid by them?
You obviously don't understand my point. If we want to flex, I have a combined CS/business degree, so I do understand the system quite well.
What canonical is doing is essentially a make or buy decision. Make our own solution or "buy" an existing one. Since in the foss world buying is almost free, you have to have good reasons to invest quite a lot of money into developing your own solution. Good reasons would be better technology, better integration into the existing ecosystem, lower costs, etc - or vendor lock-in.
Canonicals solutions are never better than what the community already agreed upon. They are not cheaper for Canonical, since they have to do all the heavy lifting themselves. They don't integrate better, since the rest of the system is more or less vanilla Linux.
So the only remaining rationale would be vendor lock-in. Canonical wants its customers to build upon their products so that it can retain those customers easier. This might actually be a valid reason for snap. Canonical has kind of cornered the market here, but it's definitely not true for Mir, Unity, etc. Those were doomed from the start and a huge waste of money.
You see, wasting money is not productive. It's kind of the opposite.
They "think" that, but it's definitely not the case.
Apart from the obvious vendor lock-in, their solutions were never the better approach from a technical or usability standpoint. Snaps aren't that great, their Wayland competitor wasn't particularly good, Unity was divisive. So they put tons of work into bad solutions for problems that have been solved elsewhere and better. Not the smartest business move.
You can't block people. Who would you know, who registered the domain?
What you're proposing is pretty similar to the current state of email. It's almost impossible to set up your own small mail server and have it communicate the "mailiverse" since everyone will just assume you're spam. And that lead to a situation where 99% of people are with one of the huge mail providers.