I’ll do ya one further: Copyright should have the same lifespan as a patent. 20 years max. No extensions, no exceptions. I’d even cosider less time than that.

If you retained the unilateral rights to copy your idea for 20 fucking years and you haven’t made your healthy profit on it already in that time, tough. Your work will forcefully enter the public domain so people who were likely actually still alive when it was culturally relevant get a shake with it.

There is no reason why something created during my childhood ought to still be languishing locked up in trust of some dead man’s corporation by the time I’ve withered away of old age and my grandkids have done the same. The severe generational lag of culture and accessible technology created by copyright in its current form is absurd.

If you want to chase your golden goose forever, keep making new iterations of it that have their own copyrights that fairly compete against everyone else’s in the marketplace of ideas. Get off your laurels. Get on your toes. Keep making new, inspired things. Earn your goddamn right to continue being seen as the rightful creator to follow up what you’ve previously made in the past.

Five years of Mate (which is essentially Gnome 2 on life support) replaced by a couple years of KDE Plasma.

Mate treated me well enough, it was mostly stable, capable, and competent. But it was a bit crusty around the edges, and being so niche meant search-engine-visible help resources for anything than went wrong were virtually nonexistent. In hindsight, using it as a beginner’s DE was probably a mistake. I suppose in being so austere and devoid of resources it taught me to develop more of a “get to the bottom of it yourself” attitude to debugging and have humbler expectations about form versus function, but that’s a pretty rough sell to most people. Mate is definitely better as a drink than a desktop environment.

I don’t need to talk about KDE Plasma at all because the rest of the thread already has. I have nothing new to add beyond the comment that I like their mascot character.

I have no informed opinion on Gnome 3. All I’ve gleaned about it is that it’s supposedly “my way or the highway” by design, and the “my way” in question is controversially counter-grain to a lot of established expectations (e.g. it’s literally why Mate exists). Which is neither here nor there to me, objectively. But I will say I have no interest learning a new way of doing things, even if it’s theoretically superior, when a conventional system still exists, is viable, is highly polished, and is kept sharp-edged. Hence, KDE Plasma.

Until they make T shaped displays that I can mount sideways, to get the best of both worlds

Were you also a proud owner of an LG Wing? 😉

I’d rather have multiple monitors so I have the more intuituve window snapping. But to each their own.

Well, I also tend to consider ultrawide monitors a mistake in their own right. Why would you want a 49" wide literally anything if it’s not some kind of immersive media experience where menus are irrelevant anyway?

Of course, if that is in fact exactly what you bought it for, I have no complaints. Even if I disagree with having one for other purposes, that’s still no reason for the OS to punish you for having one when you try to use it that way when that problem is completely avoidable.

I’ve personally always loathed the global menu bar paradigm of macOS. Having a menu bar that’s wholly detatched from the currently open window that is context-aware based on which window has focus always felt like an irritating speed bump to me. My mind feels like the OS itself is hiding things from me by only allowing me to see a single app’s menu bar at a time.

But then again, I have no objective qualms with it. I’m sure I could adapt to it. When have I realistically needed to see more than one menu bar at once? I can’t name a time. I’m probbably just pearl-clutching at the perceived arresting of my agency to do things when in fact I’m losing effectively nothing.

At any rate, we agree it’s a sure sight better than the shitshow that is GTK. “Hm? Window decorators and shit? Nahhh, those are your problem. Go roll your own.” For the flagship windowing toolkit of the GNOME Project, the DE I’d consider the closest in philosophy to what macOS has going on, that was a rather strange position to take.

I do honestly miss the level of artistic and aesthetic polish that a multi-billion dollar corporation can afford to field that no Linux distro really can.

Linux as a rule is and always has been generally quite “Guys Live In Apartments Like This”. Often utilitarian to a fault. UX design by backend devs, because actual frontend devs cost money. No one wants to pay the “beauty tax” for software. DEs like KDE and Gnome are trying very hard and have made great strides, but it’s very slow progress.

And I imagine this comment will be a magnet for power user types who will flock to my post and retort something along the lines of, “All that stuff is bloat/a usability nightmare/clutter/gets in my way/comes at the cost of features”, blah, blah, blah, waaahhhh boo hiss… Yes, it’s all true, and yes, I understand. But Linux and the free software it surrounds itself with tends to be crusty, clunky, and god-awful ugly, and I’d be lying if I said that didn’t frustrate me a bit now and again. Does it bother me to the point that I don’t want to use it? Fuck no. Windows isn’t worth the bullshit. But they do at least know how to make an OS slick and beautiful, when it works, anyway.

I’m sure people will also cherry pick examples of FOSS software that are quite ergonomic and lovely to feel. Yeah, there are many examples that exist, but they tend to be diamonds in the rough rather than exemplars of the ecosystem. For every one dev in this community who actually has a fucking clue how to make smooth-feeling and aesthetically pleasing software, there’s a score of devs who slapdash together their programmer-art-tier UIs and call it a day, and a thousand other dev-brained users who look at it and go, “this is fine”. And yeah, it is fine. But sometimes I want more than fine.

It’s a divesting of unwanted responsibility.

If any change can break something then all broken bits will need fixing.

Right. So the less decrepit, old code that contains annoying little time bombs, the less time spent fixing things.

But that’s true of all code in the kernel. […] Why not remove all drivers in case an update breaks them.

And how many people actually need these ancient drivers maintained? More than zero, sure, but how many more than zero?

Maintenance effort is a finite resource. Choosing where it gets spent is an executive decision. Every dev hour you assign to debugging some ancient driver that one or two enthusiasts might still want someday is a dev hour not spent on development of some new feature, or fixing a problem affecting thousands, potentially millions of known, current, active users.

We can’t maintain all code forever. At some point the theoretical value it may have is outweighed by its cost to keep alive, and it gets cut.

A driver can be complete and only need updating if someone else breaks stuff, so leave it alone until then and only remove it I’d no one comes to fix it.

That’s sort of where we’re at now, in a way.

Yes, all of these drivers presumably are still fully functional at the time of cutting. But the devs have essentially all decided, “We are not fixing these anymore” already. If any of these break for any reason, they would all be immediate candidates for axing by your system.

The reason they aren’t just left in with a “we’ll just run it until it dies, then!” mentality is because a project like the Linux kernel doesn’t want to be full of software with undefined mystery behavior where they can reasonably avoid it.

A chunk of code being part of it at all is an implicit promise of, “This is intended to function as-documented. If it does not, we are responsible to fix it.” But we already know no one will fix it. So instead it just becomes, “This chunk of code may or may not work. We don’t know and we don’t care, lol. Use at your own risk. If you can prove it’s broken, we’ll just remove it”.

The Linux kernel does not want to be full of code like that. All of its code should be reliable to build things on. If it’s coming out, it needs to be announced in advance so users have time to migrate. A “we will run it until it suddenly breaks” system doesn’t afford that. The feature ideally has to be sunset while it’s still functional.

“Unstable code, use at your own risk” projects are better relegated to optional packages. If someone wants to bundle up these ancient drivers and offer them as an optional package, they are free to do so. If there ends up being zero will from anyone to do even that, I guess it’s more evidence to how little the functionality was actually demanded.

Doesn’t necessarily mean it’s what users crave, just why they keep coming back for more.

Yes. And they do come back for more. A lot more. More than “genuine content” ever made them do. It is very much the intended effect, and it is demonstrably working as intended.

So why is it that when a platform like Bluesky does gangbusters while Mastodon languishes looking to pick up table scraps, people here treat it like a wild mystery?

The Fediverse is a cure to an addiction very few people actually want cured; at least, based on their actions taken to solve it. That’s how addictions work. Even people who recognize the harm and say they want out actively choose to not get out when presented an exit.

The Fediverse would succeed if it was the only choice. But in a head-to-head competition with a competently-built centralized platform that dabbles in all the trapping features its predecessor did, it’s severely outmoded.

and don’t say algorithms. the general public constantly laments about how algorithms have ruined everything.

Right, right. Much the same way the American public complains that fast food has ruined their health and yet 2/3 of the nation is overweight. Or how chain smokers know full well their lungs are fucked six ways to Sunday but they keep reaching for those nicotine hits. It’s almost like people say they hate the things they continue to reach for all the time. Funny, that.

Do I think the Fedi is reasonably within the grasp of understanding for most of the general public? Sure. But do I think anything on the Fedi stands a ghost of a chance in competition against centralized services that cater to the dopamine rush people are already conditioned to expect and continue to reach for even when several of them claim to hate it? Oh fuck no, absolutely not.

In all likelihood that experience will be temporary, in one of two ways. Either Lemmy becomes mainstream enough to enshittify beyond your tolerance, or Lemmy atrophies into obscurity and ceases being a platform with any benefit.

Which will happen, and on what timescale it will happen? Who knows. But I wager one of those outcomes is inevitable before too long. The “chill, somewhat unknown but appreciably active platform” position is long-term an unstable one.

Until then, we’re all just in time to bask in the warm glow of this little experiment for at least a little while.

It’s basically a power strip:

but specifically for cables that carry Internet traffic instead of electrical power.

A more direct analogy would be a telephone switchboard (which is why it is called a “switch”), basically a computerized version of those old-timey operator ladies who used to sit in a room waiting for you to make a phone call, and they’d physically move a plug connected to your phone and plug it directly into the phone line of whoever you were trying to call. That, but for computers trying to talk to one another over network cables instead of making telephone calls.

Choice is an irritating speed bump to people who don’t care to choose, which unfortunately is most of them.

Python is the only programming language that has forced me to question what the difference is between an egg and a wheel.

The two apps are identical and built from the same codebase anyway. K-9 is just a branding asset swap.

I’ve seen conflicting info from Thunderbird devs on how long they actually intend to keep both branding packages active. I’ve heard no longer than a year. I’ve heard only as long as it takes to get Thunderbird out of beta. I’ve heard they have some sort of agreement with FDroid that obligates them to keep it listed for some minimum duration of time (???). I’ve most recently heard indefinitely, because their build script is just a toggle now and it costs them nothing. Which one do I believe? I have no idea. I doubt K-9 will be kept around in perpetuity, though.

My true hell would be instances only federating explicitly through whitelist. If what the other reply I received about Mastodon is correct, and if Lemmy behaves similary, then they operate on an implicit auto-federation with every other instance. Actual transaction of data needs to be triggered by some user on that instance reaching out to the other instance, but there’s no need for the instances involved to whitelist one another first. They just do it. To stop the transfer, they have to explicitly defed, which effectively makes it an opt-out system.

The root comment I initially replied to made it sound, to me, like Mastodon instances choose not to federate with one another. Obviously they aren’t preemptively banning one another, so, I interpreted that to mean Mastodon instances must whitelist one another to connect. But apparently what they actually meant was, “users of Mastodon instances rarely explore outward”? The instances would auto-federate, but in practice, the “crawlers” (the users) aren’t leaving their bubbles often enough to create a critical mass of interconnectedness across the Fediverse?

The fact we have to have this discussion at all is more proof to my original point regardless. Federation is pure faffery to people who just want a platform that has everything in one place.

That sounds worse than I thought it was. I just assumed Mastodon was like Lemmy, where every instance federates with every other instance basically by default and there’s only some high-profile defed exceptions.

A Fediverse where federations are opt-in instead of opt-out sounds like actual hell. Yeah, more control to instances, hooray, but far less seamless usability for people. The only people you will attract with that model are the ones who think having upwards of seven alts for being in seven different communities isn’t remotely strange or cumbersome. That, and/or self-hosting your own individual instances. Neither of these describe the behavior of the vast majority of Internet users who want to sign up on a platform that just works with one account that can see and interact with everything.

Season’s the reason!

This is basically asking why anyone would live in or near a city like Los Angeles or New York City when Minot exists and has everything you could possibly need.

If you had to look up where Minot even is, you’ve proven my point.

Say what you will about whether living near the proverbial big city is worth it or not. But it cannot be denied, there is a world of experiences on offer at larger platforms that a smaller platform simply cannot provide. Network effect can be a cruel mistress.

I’m pretty sure they’re referring to the concept of defederation and how that can splinter the platform.

Bluesky is ““federated”” in largely the same ways as Mastodon, but there’s basically one and only one instance anyone cares about. The federation capability is just lip service to the minority of dorks like us who care.

To the vast majority of Twitter refugees, federation as a concept is not a feature, it’s an irritation.