That's the role of rhetoric as a skill: all the true and sufficient syllogisms in the world will be ignored by most readers, if the argument leads with priors-triggering hyperbole and bombast.
So long as that OSS keeps accumulating features, there isn't quite the equilibrium you're imagining. If you can pin to a stable version, which continues to audited, you're fine. But if the rest of the world moves on to newer versions of the software, you'll have to as well, unless you want to own the burden of hardening older versions.
> /r/unixporn has a lot of _beautiful_ looking desktops
The emphasis here should be on the word _looking_ instead. A lot of these desktops (majority are hyprland setups) reveal themselves to be superficial jank when you try to do anything remotely commonplace, like connecting to a new wifi network. It's great that windows slide around at 60fps, but if your answer for managing your network is to open the cli, what even is the desktop for?
And I say this as someone who uses Gnome and maintains his own extension forks.
> but if your answer for managing your network is to open the cli, what even is the desktop for
Precisely but I'm on the "if you can see your desktop at all, you're not using the computer right" side of the coin. I use KDE because keyboard shortcuts and infinite customization and reasonably powerful automation. I do not care what things look like, so long as whatever the look like, they stay in the same spot that they have been in for the last decade.
I think my distro changes the wallpaper every point release for KDE but I'm not really sure, I only see it briefly after a reboot.
Someone will need to establish an entity to bring a distributable version of that browser to an app store, and in doing so, taking on the compliance liability.
A great HN feature would be a link to a chatgpt chat, with the contents of the article loaded into the context, summary already generated. Some of these articles are five sentences of interesting information, hidden among five paragraphs of forced human interest.
reply