> I don’t want my mother or grandmother to be able to install apps from random sources ever.
If your mother or grandmother is tech-savvy enough to navigate the hurdles of enabling sideloading in the settings and deal with the scary warnings that come with it, then God bless them.
My mother has used Android for many years, and even though they have had their Windows installation plagued with various viruses, she hasn’t managed to install a single virus on her Android phone yet. And yes, I check every time I go back home.
> Or the third option: they feel the tradeoff of HN & co's criticism style is not a big deal in the end.
Well, right now, with their dwindling market cap, I feel like their only userbase is HN & co's type of user.
They repeatedly failed to increase their user base with non privacy conscious adjacent communities. So antagonizing the ONLY folks that go through the trouble of installing a non default browser to have a worse user experience seems like a big brain moment.
I wonder what the market share in that segment is? From my experience, startup types almost exclusively use Chrome or Safari. Firefox doesn't even register with most devs.
It seems somewhat questionable whether or not it is possible to sustain something as complex as Firefox based on users like us. There might not be enough, or enough people willing to pay.
They’d be really screwed if Google didn’t give them a good deal. Somewhat wondering if Google just keeps them around to stave off the appearance of being a monopoly.
The web seems to have gotten pretty unsustainable in general. Might consider upgrading to Lynx or something like that.
> It seems somewhat questionable whether or not it is possible to sustain something as complex as Firefox based on users like us.
I have this crazy theory that Firefox could be completely sustained by users willing to pay for it.
I mean... Mozilla Co definitely couldn't be sustained by users money only, but Firefox could.
The only path I can see for a healthy web (if this is even possible right now) is to completely liberate Firefox from Mozilla's shackles and mismanagement. A free and open-source browser should be treated more like a public good, such as a Linux distribution, than a money-making machine.
I’m not sure how is the reality in South Korea but, if my country is anything to go by, these 3 companies are probably a hidden cartel that monopolizes the price and offers while offering the bare minimum.
I keep reading this on the internet and I’m fully convinced that this is written by people with powerful machines.
Whenever I try to play a game that barely runs at 60 fps on windows in my basic system it invariably runs in the range of 45-55 fps on Linux.
This would be perfectly acceptable except that it eventually leads to stutters that I never experienced on windows..
Ps. Yeah I tried to troubleshoot this with everything google and ChatGPT had to offer: disable composers, different proton versions, different distros and different desktops environments. The matter of the fact is that there’s an overhead and if your system is barely running it on windows you will probably have performance headaches on Linux.
> Whenever I try to play a game that barely runs at 60 fps on windows in my basic system it invariably runs in the range of 45-55 fps on Linux.
This is not a valid test. You need to compare Linux native vs. Proton rather than (Proton+Linux) vs. Windows. Otherwise you’re comparing at least three things at once.
Yeah I mean if you look at windows vs linux gaming benchmarks on phoronix it's clear there's about a 10% performance penalty. On the other hand there's a 10% penalty using bitlocker on windows vs almost none on linux, so it evens out if you care about privacy. Also you know for certain MS isn't keylogging everything you type to some godforsaken MS service, and the developer experience on linux is miles better.
If you don't mean "make more money"/"squeeze out every penny possible", I doubt the reasons are the same. These are 3 totally different classes of products, with different development/support costs, and pricing orders of magnitude apart.
I was a premium subscriber for 1 month and quickly cancelled my subscription, the reason is simple: I was still bombarded by ads, just not YouTube ads.
If YouTube want my business back they should simply find a way to force YouTube creators to provide two video streams, one with sponsored content for non premium users and one with their sponsored content shenanigans stripped out for premium users. This would make me subscribe asap even if I couldn't care less for YouTube Music as a happy spotify user.
I know I can use sponsorblock to get rid of this, but I just felt silly having to use an adblocker while still paying for youtube premium.
Luck for you it was not the national government who banned someone on a social media platform, it was a Court of Justice.
They can send someone to jail, expel someone who is illegally in our country and "banning people" on twitter is what gets you? Weird hill to die on.