Perhaps, but eventually there will probably ba a certificate authority alternative to Google. But I agree, we need regulation to determine to ensure that programs calling themselves web browsers will have to adhere to standards, and not be based on features that make certain websites work only on their browser. I think the backlash reaction to implementing "integrity" as a standard was really healthy. But there is still a lot of action to take on the regulatory front.
spark947
joined 2 years ago
Are their any downsides to self hosting this stuff?
It would be very illegal for them to continually keep these plans around as a strike response.
As a Jew, I'm glad that world leaders saying something and standing up for the protection of innocents.
On an unrelated note - why do we care what Yanis tweets about this? So weird to have that in this article.
They aren't having more sex. You have 18 years to be a child, and then another ~60 to die. At low life expectancy, the chances of you being a child is very high.
I've just whitewashed on my main Google account. Its only a matter of time before they start ip blocking. I'll figure out an alternative soon enough.
From unity's perspective it is a bunch of wasted work. Thats the issue - they threw a billion dollars at developing their proprietary c# runtime and not recouping the cost of investment. But they can't wait around for Microsoft to make moves. And they probably don't want to open source their runtime either out of fear that a free game engine using it will make the rounds.
Godot ultimately has the right approach: offer support through universal bindings to it's underlying archetype and let devs decide what they want in their game's stack. Everyone wins.
It is in a technicality But the reality is, it will always move at the pace and at the whims microsoft wants it to.
Thats not necessarily a bad thing honestly. But you can really get i to trouble making it a core dependency for something like a game engine. Unity's users didn't care that Microsoft hadn't posted the runtime to iOS, they expected their games to run on iOS. So Unity did a bunch of dev work that is now kind of a bad investment with .NET 8. This is the core of why they wanted to charge an install fee in the first place.
I get the idea of having flexible options for game devs. Support for systems language for engine internals (C++), hooks for a runtime machien based language (C#), and support for a dynamic scripting language (GDScript) makes sense architecturally. C# is also strategic because XNA to Unity has pretty much cemented its status for game devs. And then GDExtension to provide an api layer for whatever other language under the sun you want to use. It is a very sensible place for Godot to be in.
Well whatever - going down the proprietary imementation route for c# the way unity did is a no go for Godot imo.
Yeah, I agree, I don't like that aspect of flatpak development either. The idea that the containerization is supposed to provide some kind of resistant form of a sandbox that prevents malicious programs from breaking into your system; I don't buy it.
Look, you need to trust your application sources, there is no way around that. The idea that this is supposed to be a "safer" way to install software than any other package manager is silly.
I still like that flatpak apps are separated from your system and locked to their own dependencies because it makes these apps more portable to different distros. But not for security reasons.
A sad day for Australia. It was cool to see a lot if Australian celebrities come out in support of a yes vote.