Sounds like they were getting overly upset by things that don't effect them and also...checks notes a website following the law of the country they're based in.
Really weird things to be getting upset over if you ask me.
Regardless of the stupidity of the law (which don't get me wrong, the Online "Safety" Act in the UK is incredibly dumb) you still have to follow it until its struck down or replaced.
I mean if you're gonna stop people from owning their device and doing what they want with it just because of the possibility of crime occurring then their are quite a few more things that probably should also no longer exist because of their potential use in crime.
That's a pretty ridiculous argument if you ask me.
You can say that about a lot of things in life. Legalized gambling, for example. Tons of people ruin their lives with it and this creates big externalities for society. But we tolerate it so that everyone has the freedom to gamble.
Apple on the other hand offers a locked down product that many people want because they don’t trust themselves. I think a lot of people have short memories for all the hacking and spyware that plagued Windows users a couple decades ago. I think we also need to remember that Apple is not the government so people have alternatives to buying their devices.
Personally, I think people should have the right to buy a locked down device. It’s not on Apple to provide open competitors to their product. And why should developers have a right to develop for the platform? Heck, I wanted the iPhone back when it didn’t even have 3rd party apps at all.
> Apple on the other hand offers a locked down product that many people want because they don’t trust themselves
The idea that, for many people purchasing an iPhone, the inability to install apps from alternative stores or the web is a selling point seems rather questionable.
On top of that this could easily be provided by an optional switch that enables you to enforce this on your own device if you so desire.
It is a poor reason to request that all app distribution for everyone else also has to go through Apple and its terms, basically for your convenience.
I’ve already given one reason why the switch is a bad idea. Another reason is that powerful third parties such as Meta and Google could force users to disable their own protections and give those apps full access to all data as a condition of installation.
Ultimately, an option becomes a requirement and then the protection for users is totally gone.
>>hacking and spyware that plagued Windows users a couple decades ago
And that still plagues every computing platform now. Including Apple platforms. So the lockdown clearly didn’t completely solve that problem like a lot of people seem to claim
That is exactly what Apple has decided to do. You have named the tradeoff. Stop the possibility by disabling everyone. It has always been this way. People have had nearly 20 years to leave Apple
is like much of the discourse around the changes, overly sensationalized and borderline false.
The only change made that's relevant to sideloading-a-downloaded-APK as far I understand, is a 24hour delay in enabling the ability to do so, which is a wildly overblown non-issue.
It’s a one time delay that occurs when you first enable the ability to install downloaded apks and you never see it again for any device attached to your Google account. That’s why I called it a wildly overblown non-issue
I also had one of this 11th Gen Intel FW13s, and the RTC battery on mine worked for a short time because they for some reason used some garbage rechargeable one with a 2 yr lifespan instead of the more common not-rechargeable battery that every other PC vendor uses with seemingly 10x the lifespan
>> Linux users are willing to put up with any amount of work - i.e. bullshit - to make their installations work just to get a UX that's almost as good as Windows from 20 years ago
I put in the exact same amount of effort to install a Linux distro on my laptop that I would have to install Windows.
1. Download the ISO
2. Write to a USB drive
3. Reboot
4. Run the installer.
5. ???
6. Profit
And all for an experience with way less bloat, none of the bundled spyware, more consistent UI design (depending on which desktop you're using), and better perceived performance.
>>This article highlights a problem that Windows has right now, and one which I agree with, which is shipping web apps instead of native. For now, I have a workaround for it:
This is still a web app, it doesn't solve the problem of MS being too lazy or cheap to make real desktop apps for things. I mean this is the same company who thought taking the Start Menu of all things and re-making it with web crap was a good idea.
This is just false. For starters, your users most _definitely_ don't care about how "elegant" your code is either. They want new features to keep them engaged, or to make the product better. The quicker they get those wants fulfilled by your product, the less likely they are to churn off your product onto something else that has those features that they are missing.
The only people who care about code elegance are the people looking at the code, which is orders of magnitude fewer people than those who are _using_ the artifacts of what the code actually represents.
So I'm not so sure how you arrived at your conclusion of Zed having higher memory use than VSCODE but in testing just now that's not at all close to true.
Zed for me on my Linux machine opened to a massive C++ project (the Ladybird browser if you were curious) is (not including LSP or extension processes) using around 480MB of memory.
VSCode on the other hand with nothing open but a 20 line JSON file is (again not including any LSP or extension processes) using around 920MB of memory as reported by its own builtin task manager thing.
I suppose 480MB for a text editor might be a tad high but calling it worse than VSCode is a massive stretch.
If editors own memory usage is your main concern then you should use emacs or even better mg or vi.
The editor + its plugins + it's LSP server is what counts. I dont care if zed is written in rust and uses 400MB when it spawns a multi GB nodejs process when I work on my tiny golang project.
> we got rid of this requirement a couple of years ago.
Do you regret having this requirement in the first place?
Personal feedback: I live in a terminal 24x7 for the last 30+ years and once Warp came out I wanted to try it out immediately, but I was impressed by the requirement. So I never had a chance to try it out.
Really weird things to be getting upset over if you ask me.
Regardless of the stupidity of the law (which don't get me wrong, the Online "Safety" Act in the UK is incredibly dumb) you still have to follow it until its struck down or replaced.
reply