Can’t say I agree, but it’s an interesting perspective for sure. Although, given the problem literally cannot be solved by tightening the DRM and whatnot, why don’t we fight the stigmatization instead? As in, people usually dgaf if they learn their friend is an accountant or paints 40k miniatures in their spare time.
deleted by creator
RSS readers are the way, yes; mail – most of the time: there are pretty nice Foss options I can trust, although it’s not always possible, like with free tier proton mail. As for chat clients, also true for android but not so true on desktops: like, I’m not exactly happy when telegram logs my window manager and so on.
It’s sometimes useful for messengers, tho. I mean, many of those are electron apps anyway, and those that are not are unlikely to have a sandbox as good as what browsers have.
Although, I agree: my default action for notifications is always reject, and then I can manually approve what I think I need.
Not sure if it was a joke 😅 Nextpush uses your nextcloud (~a self-hosted google drive alternative) instance in case you happen to have one, so that would depend on where you’re hosting it. Although, assuming push notifications aren’t exactly resource-intensive (otherwise those would require at least making an account), the difference would be pretty negligible from a performance standpoint
A small addition to already mentioned stuff. There are multiple ways to deliver the notifications without google services. 1st and older one is by simply letting the app hang in the background indefinitely and ping the necessary servers from time to time, that one almost always works, since app developers can’t really rely on gapps being installed; 2nd is UnifiedPush (that’s already mentioned sunup [mozilla], but also ntfy [ntfy], nextpush [nextcloud], gCompat-UP [google firebase], NoProvider2Push [fully local]). AFAIK, it works similarly to the way gapps send notifications and uses less battery, but not all apps support it, so you may need to search for forks. For example, the official and, iirc, Foss telegram clients don’t, but mercury, nagram{,x} and momo do.
Not the brightest of those, imo: a while back they’ve opted their users in “discover together”, which is basically sharing your watch history with your plex friends. That went over as well as you’d expect: https://www.404media.co/plex-users-fear-discover-together-week-in-review-feature-will-leak-porn-habits-to-their-friends-and-family/
Samsungs mostly, also shift and a few older models. Although, some have a crutch called displaylink, which basically encapsulates video signal over USB in software, while dp alt mode kinda* connects those same wires to the displayport output of the SoC (which is better due to having little to no overhead as well as ~no need for specialized overcomplicated hardware).
Also, some of the older models, like my beloved oneplus 6, don’t even support USB 3, so dp alt mode is physically impossible for those.
* iirc, on qualcomms at least the SoC itself multiplexes USB 3 with dp (as in, it can be configured to output usb3 or dp on the same data lines), but I’m not sure how the switching itself is triggered, so there may or may not be a need to add another IC that’ll handle communications over CC lines and tell the SoC when to use which. I personally suppose the SoCs should be able to handle everything themselves, tho.
Is it just me, or it kinda sounds like they don’t want to prococess a complaint? A warning not to do that again would be enough, IMO, given it seems like there are no rules prohibiting this.
That’s cool and everything, yet we have an itsy-bitsy tiny problem: iirc, there are like 3.5 vendors that have opted into dp alt mode support, and each one I know of kinda sucks. I suppose it might be possible to simply enable it in software by changing the devicetree on usb3 devices or something if the port the vendor decided to route is the one multiplexed with dp, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Yeah, right. Because those contracts are set in stone, and our corporate overlords won’t ever take away the advertised ability to download books you’ve paid for, not to mention those very contracts being written in human-readable format and not lawyer speak. \s
Agreed to disagree then. IMO, if a company thinks it’s OK to throw me over the dick hiding behind being afraid of shadows, deny me access to legally obtained content on my devices, walk back on previous deals, and so on, then I have no problem with getting unrestricted access to stuff they decided I don’t technically own. Fuck the fucker, simple as that.
Baseless (and also wrong) assumption that piracy is responsible for by any means significant monetary losses aside, there are other reasons for bypassing that DRM bullshit. Like, off the top of my head:
Good to see there are still viruses in the wild, I was beginning to think those kinda became some ancient forgotten form of art. [I mean proper viruses, not malware in general]