The first I heard of snaps was while I was upgrading from 18.04 to 20.04 (I only do LTS for work servers).
What drove _me_ away personally, was I had no idea what snap is and it was all over the place all of a sudden. After studying up I was like “no I don’t want that, I want to have full control over my system”.
I switched to Fedora Server. The packages are much fresher, the kernel is fresher. It is a “staging” area for Red Hat, which for me is a plus.
Goodbye Ubuntu. I’ve been using you as my primary Linux distro since version 6.06!
Very well said! I am afraid there is a prophecy in your description. I have started moving all of our infrastructure away from Ubuntu at work. This sounds horrible. 2020 has been bad enough for one year.
Ubuntu 20.04 forced me to switch to Fedora Server on my home server. Pretty happy so far. I have significantly fresher package versions and most of the software tools I use offer a RPM package. I think I will wait for snap to mature, before giving it another go.
They won’t, at least not for now, I assume. They can put far more intrusive tracking inside an app compared to a web browser. There is also no way to do content blocking or ad blocking inside apps, at least not on iOS. I use Facebook in Safari - can’t be happier (well, I mean it’s Facebook, but I am not able to pursue all my friends to cancel it).
I believe Apple users choose the Apple ecosystem specifically because they value the protection the App Store provides. I can't even imagine the nightmare if every app was allowed to redirect me to their website, register there and enter payment information before I can start using their app. This system would be abused as hell. The in-app purchases are transparent (I can review all my transaction in one single place) and I can approve my child's purchases remotely.
Also I am sure if the roles were switched, Spotify would no way in hell allow Apple Music to be priced the same way on their App Store for their ecosystem users. It's hypocrisy.
I agree 30% might be too much, but it's their App Store, their users, their infrastructure, their public trust at stake, their rules.
I might get downvoted on principle, but I genuinely wonder and don't understand: why is it NOT OK for Google and Apple to ask for a cut? They have spent years and millions (if not billions) in developing the infrastructure, public trust and user base that allows developers to reach millions of potential customers in the first place. They provide some valuable guarantees that apps should follow that benefit and protect the consumer. I understand that bypassing fees is a way how to temporarily "have green numbers" and show savings on the quarterly report, but this is like a sugar company trying to sell sugar on the streets outside of a supermarket chain, because they don't want to pay a fee to the supermarket chain. It's their app store, their user base - why can't they make their own rules which benefit the consumer in the first place and not the greedy provider?
Again, I am genuinely curious what ethical principle am I missing here.
Yes, that is true. But the hypocrisy is how Firefox criticises Google (either directly or indirectly), but is paid by Google to have them as the default search engine. The emphasis is on the word default, not that you can't change it. The same thing goes for Apple with Safari. They disabled 3rd party cookies and promote privacy, but Google is still the default browser, for which Google pays a very large amount of money each year.
All of this is fantastic. I just hope the day comes, when Google is no longer the default search engine in Firefox. Safari is my default browser, but I use Firefox heavily for “social” media accounts. I love the extensions.
This is the industry standard.
I wish I had a choice to either pay with my data ("free" content), or pay with money in a subscription model. Just like Zuckerberg was asked, whether he would consider a subscription model. The formula is quite simple: monthly income divided by the number of users, that came out around $11 a month, if I recall correctly.
This, of course, isn't in the interest of content providers at all. With a growing user base, the unit price of an ad is growing each month. Users wouldn't agree to an increased monthly fee based on the number of users. Greed wins.
I wouldn't mind ads in principle. I hate intrusive ads. Does anyone know, why the Acceptable Ads movement isn't globally spread yet? I think this could be a middle ground for advertisers and users. https://acceptableads.com
Oh the hypocrisy. Reading about how bad ad targeting and tracking is, while being welcomed by a huge, annoying modal, covering up half of the text I’m eager to read, with a large ACCEPT button, or the opt-out button hidden behind a link on an external page.
It’s like sharing those “Delete Facebook” posts, on Facebook.
I am a very visual person. The first step before I start writing a workflow in gitlab is, that I draw the whole pipeline on a whiteboard as a tree/graph. We discuss it with the team and only then I start writing the .gitlab-ci.yml file.
Having something digital to substitute the whiteboard would be fantastic. Not just for designing the pipeline, but also for seeing the results of an actual run of the pipeline.
I knew nothing about Netlify before this post, so this is a purely generic, rational note: yes it will. You lure in customers with an attractive free tier and then change it so you can monetize at least some of them and be profitable. Choosing the right business model however, is what I think shows the true character of the company’s leadership. Unfortunately greed usually wins. But enjoy the product while it lasts. Might be a good amount of months, or even years before that happens.
Agree. I used to work with ROS during a semester of AI. We had to build a robot that drove itself on top of a roomba vacuum cleaner and used a kinect for vision. I was super familiar with Ubuntu/Debian, but ROS was a mess. The materials we were provided by the course staff was more troubleshooting guides with ROS, than initial setup tutorials. It was a lot of fun, but I couldn’t imagine building something with real-world applications on top of it. Outdated packages. Lots of unpredictable failures. If the original purpose was only prototyping for students, then it works well for that.
While the “Accept” button is the only big blue button in the pop-up and the opt-out options are hidden after 2 clicks away on an arbitrary link hidden in the text. Of course, there is no “deselect all” personalized advertising vendors. One by one. Every time! I am thinking they should have made opt-in mandatory, but websites would have found a way. Greed always finds a way.
Maybe "idiocy" is unnecessarily strong, but I certainly don't have to praise all emerging experiments just to sound polite, do I? The emerging of all these stacks is because of approachability. Everyone has a browser. Anyone who wants to create their first website can do so, by opening up e.g. notepad. By this approach you get low-quality, self-taught JS "experts" who are much cheaper to hire than a proper software engineer with fundamentals of computer science. After a few years these developers feel so confident, they decide to launch their own perfect new framework/library to solve all the problems they experienced!
There is a better solution. It's called native app development, without a hyphen of any sorts in front of "native". Different platforms have different quirks and there is no way to have the exact same UI/UX on all platforms.
The true challenge is to explain the executives, that hiring 2 developers will be much better in the long run, than 1 underpaid JS developer for all platforms.
I switched to Fedora Server. The packages are much fresher, the kernel is fresher. It is a “staging” area for Red Hat, which for me is a plus.
Goodbye Ubuntu. I’ve been using you as my primary Linux distro since version 6.06!