Having used both, I would be really sad if they switch to KDE. Based on my experience KDE cannot be considered stable. Additionally I feel Gnome have better UI and UX compared to KDE
If you tried KDE a while ago and found it too buggy or unstable, I suggest you give it another try now that Plasma 6 is out. A ton of work went into visual design, usability, consistency and productivity.
This definitely no. The reason i use it is the UI. Firefox, Chrome, Edge UI is a mess, a disgrace of UI design. I had to edit the user.css to get scrollbars at reasonable width.
I had a look into this because I became curious because the scrollbars are definitely sometimes annoying. Turns out that they removed the ability to edit Custom.css and do stuff like this in 2014. I wonder if there's another way to do that now? Haven't been able to find out.
Having scrollbars of reasonable width is not antithetical to having a UI that looks like it was made after 2006. You could easily have something that looks like Chrome and has a larger scrollbar. You could go for a different look, just not one that literally looks ancient.
Not the same thing dude. This interface is straight outta 2005. Chrome's interface has been being tweaked constantly over the years. It doesn't need an overhaul because it's not 15+ years out of date.
But I mean, you do you man. There's nothing wrong with liking retro interfaces. I once tried to do everything to make my computer look like Windows XP just for nostalgia. Regardless, the product has nice features that would be cool to use, except most people don't want one application on their computer to look like it was there when 9/11 happened while everything else looks new. There would be nothing wrong with having an application with the same features that's not off-putting to most users.
But sure, they can block themselves into a niche of people that don't care if UI looks nice if they really want. That's allowed. Not illegal lol.
>Not the same thing dude. This interface is straight outta 2005. Chrome's interface has been being tweaked constantly over the years. It doesn't need an overhaul because it's not 15+ years out of date.
You basically repeated my point. Change for change's sake. And it looks similar to 2009 Chrome, so yeah it's quite literally 15 years out of date.
>look like it was there when 9/11 happened while everything else looks new
Nevermind man. Design is supposed to look nice and look like it goes together with the rest of the ecosystem. It is not mutually exclusive with functionality. But you clearly don't care about design that looks good. You are clearly not a design guy. You do not have an eye for design. You do not care about design. As I said, that's fine. It limits the audience of the product but it can be incredibly niche like that if it wants to be.
User interface design is about designing interfaces that can be used by users.
You can prefer a style, you can customize it to your liking if themes are available (in this case, they are), but if you just replace the whole UI design field with "design is supposed to look nice", what you get might be an aberration. It might be pleasing to some people (but then still some, I really doubt you can find something that is universally pleasant?), but what good is that without being usable? Or if it makes usage much more difficult?
Bro design is supposed to be functional and ergonomic AND look nice obviously. Do you think I'm so dumb that I actually believe the first half of that equation should be left out? I was just pointing out how you seem to have absolutely no appreciation for the second half of the equation, which is tantamount to completely neglecting a huge part of what design is.
Strong agree. Concept sounds great. The UI looks like something out of 2005 and that's just not okay. It simply cannot be relevant while looking like that and updating its UI would not have to cause any loss in functionality. It's honestly a waste of time for devs to be working on something that looks like that, since you're cutting out half your audience.
> Strong agree. Concept sounds great. The UI looks like something out of 2005 and that's just not okay.
Why is that not OK? Wouldn't that mean that its UI has avoided the last ~15 years of general decline in structure and usability that we see commonly afflicting "modern" UI designs?
Lmao. Nice roast but I'm not sure I'd get a Cybertruck even if I could afford one. It's sorta cool in its own way though. I respect the Cybertruck. #CybertrucksDeserveRespect
Edit: I mean that it's cool in how it looks but yeah I would never buy Tesla because the products seem unreliable and dangerous as hell
The thing is that you were complaining about SeaMonkey due to how it looks, even though the way it looks is generally associated with an era of software design which expected much higher degree of reliability and user control than is common for "modern" software.
I don't think that's a purely contingent association, either: with software, how the UI looks and how the functionality works are deeply intertwined, and I think there may be a more direct correlation between "modern" software being unreliable, unconfigurable, and insecure, and it having haphazard UI designs that lack underlying organizing principles or adherence to well-established conventions.
So your original complaint seems to imply almost the opposite of what you are saying here -- that superficial aesthetics are more important to you, even to the point where you'd accept poor functionality and user-hostile anti-patterns as a viable tradeoff.
Im not really sure how on earth you have inferred that I think aesthetics are so important that I would compromise on functionality for that. I never said that. I am saying that both are necessary, whether you want to believe it or not. Just because you are nostalgic for the good old days where UI was more functional in your opinion, does not mean that applications have to look like they were made in 2005. What is stopping us from integrating some modern aesthetic elements into a design that is highly functional? Recognising a problem in the design of some modern apps does not necessitate us reverting to an outdated past vision. We can easily look forward and make a new alternative.
IMHO you need to step back and consider that there are more views of design, you think some newer look is "more modern" and better in itself, you say "outdated past vision". But those concepts are subjective too.
I like the Modern SeaMonkey theme. I also like the look of the classic theme (not default, but the old default, sometimes called "XPFE Classic"). Not sure if just out of nostalgia or because it looks neat to me. What I value more is that SeaMonkey's looks are customizable. I don't know if it's customizable enough to make a theme that behaves in the way you prefer, but at least there is room for customization. (I'm mentioning this because I do think this is an interesting feature to have.)
So, please consider relativizing your position, it seems you're insisting on a bias against the design just because it is not recent enough, but also wording that as an absolute.
To me that sounds like people who say some train models "look old" and "have to be replaced" just because they feature Budd-style corrugated stainless steel.
I used to work for a company owned by Apollo - if its the one i'm thinking of...and if so then "corporate raider from the 80s" is putting things mildly. Those guys really were the type to squeeze every ounce of value of any org without remorse for the future or without thinking of the long-term value that an org could produce.
Yahoo had good tech, sadly well hidden thanks to a bad board and execs. it was still doing bleeding edge freebsd, like netflix just found out and can't stop talking about lately.
last good ceo was bartz, but she lost for carl Icahn who wanted to destroy Yahoo so his shares on MS and google ad business would go up. then he managed to get mayer to go in and do his bidding from the inside and the rest is history.
That makes me wonder, regarding AOL/Yahoo/Verizon/... what's the story behind "8 BITMIME" and their mail server's broken 8-bit handling ([0],[1])? Did they just get server software with bugs in one of the acquisitions/mergers? Or is it some incompatibility or configuration issue comparable to the 500-mile e-mail story [2]?
(Note: I had no idea they hadn't fixed it yet (at least the utf8 part)... I tested just now, and, sure, it's still broken... currently it is operating in "State 2".)
that actually matches the timeline i described. it's already on mayer and Icahn destroying it. i think only senior left on mail was responsible for spam and nothing else.
I've never worked for AOL nor yahoo so I have only an outsider view...and I'm sure to a degree you're not wrong. But still, these Apollo guys are just another level of value extraction.
Seems nice, but are there any publicly available documentation to be able to evaluate its readiness and what languages are there libraries for? I may be blind but I cannot find any.
jpgvm is right. AutoMQ didn't modify the computation layer of Kafka, but only revamped the storage layer. This means you can use AutoMQ just like Kafka. This is very user-friendly for those who are already using Kafka and applying tools within the Kafka ecosystem.
If you need to ask you aren't ready for something like this.
That said, it's basically Kafka with the topic-partition persistence swapped out. So the libraries etc are just the standard Kafka libraries because the frontend listener is unmodified.
Yes, thank you for the clarification. AutoMQ has replaced the topic-partition storage with cloud-native S3Stream (https://github.com/AutoMQ/automq/tree/main/s3stream) library, thereby harnessing the benefits of cloud EBS and S3.
One thing that isn't made clear is when writes are acknowledged.
Specifically is a write acknowledged when it's written to Delta WAL or when it's uploaded to object storage?
If writes are acknowledged when written to Delta WAL is it possible to lose acknowledged writes when an EBS volume becomes unavailable or does that whole partition become unwritable until the volume comes back? Or is Delta WAL itself replicated in a similar fashion to traditional Kafka storage?
Yes, acknowledgments for writes occur once the data is committed to the EBS WAL, with each write operation bypassing the cache via Direct IO. Data is then asynchronously uploaded to S3.
Given that EBS already ensures various levels of data durability, AutoMQ does not replicate data. Addressing your last question regarding the scenario when an EBS volume becomes unavailable:
- AutoMQ maintains a minimal amount of data on EBS, for example, only 500MB, which can be easily cached in memory. If an EBS volume goes offline, we promptly upload all data to S3 and close all partitions on the affected broker. Subsequently, we redistribute the closed partitions to other brokers.
Germany is not a common law country and neither are any other EU countries. Higher court decisions (which I don’t think is the case here) can set jurisprudence but it’s not the same thing as in a common law system.
Also national court decisions do not apply to other member states.
A lot of courts use rulings from other countries where the cases are similar. Any interpretation by the Berlin regional court that GDPR implies that DNT should be treated as a GDPR opt-out should be easily adopted by courts in other countries deciding similar cases.
I’d have to read this specific decision but my opinion is that while the GDPR says the user can refuse consent “by automated means” it doesn’t specify what those means are, thus making it quite hard to follow, enforce and therefore likely that other courts will decide differently on similar cases. E.g. would my own “X-Tracking-Is-Stupid: don’t track me” header be valid as refusing consent? What if I add it as a query parameter in the URL? And so on - DNT is not special in the eyes of the law.
Care to explain? In my legal career - which is now years behind me - I've never heard of, say, a Dutch court picking case law from Germany and make it applicable to a Dutch case.
This talks about foreign countries applying & enforcing your countries court orders (within EU). I don't think it can be stretched to include case law in your new case.
You could try that in court since the base gdpr is the same, but EU law implementations still differ.
GDPR is a different law per country, not one law for the whole Union.
A lawyer could argue that the law in their country is supposed to work like the law of another country because both are GDPR, not directly appeal to the authority of a foreign court.
GDPR is an EU regulation which means that it is one law for the whole union. EU regulations supersedes even constitutions of member countries. An EU directive means that countries have to put a law in their own books.
Don't know though how different court judgements are interpreted. I'd guess it would have to be an EU-court judgement for it to bind other courts. In most EU countries only high/supreme court rulings set a precedent anyway.
> EU regulations supersedes even constitutions of member countries.
On paper that is the idea politicians had, but they don't always have the final say in practice. For instance Germany's Federal Constitutional Court reserved themselves the right to make decisions superseding EU regulations, however re-affirming the authority of the European Court of Justice "in the general case", since it is compatible with Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany. Neither court is explicitly considered to be higher and their stance is cooperative.
So far, as far as I know, no EU regulation was struck down in Germany, only parts of various laws implementing directives.
>Don't know though how different court judgements are interpreted. I'd guess it would have to be an EU-court judgement for it to bind other courts.
If there is a contested interpretation of EU law then the lower courts of a member state MAY refer a question (or questions) to the CJEU to resolve the issue.
In the case of the highest courts (where there can be no appeal) they MUST make a referral to the CJEU.
These referrals also aren't "appeals" as such, either, but are designed to answer the questions in such a way that the member states' courts can resolve the case with an authoritative (and consistent) interpretation of EU law.
