I personally chose RADV after looking into this myself and the only drawback from my understanding is that they are proprietary drivers.

RADV is the open-source community developed Vulkan driver. It has the widest hardware support of the three Vulkan drivers and is generally the best for gaming.

AMD provides two more Vulkan drivers - AMDVLK is the open-source one available in AMDGPU, then there’s the unnamed proprietary Vulkan driver in AMDGPU-PRO. The biggest advantage of the proprietary one is that it is certified - doesn’t matter most of the time, but when it does, a missing certification is a deal breaker.

As @Treeniks@lemmy.ml pointed out, the author considers something as small as spawning a separate process for each window to mean a “non-native experience” (wait till they see how web browsers work)

Licensing the source as GPL doesn’t really force the copyright holder (which is 100% BitWarden due to their Contributors Agreement^*, no matter who contributed the code) to do anything - they are absolutely free to release binaries built on the same codebase as proprietary software without any mention of the GPL.

For example if I write a hello world terminal program, release its source code under GPLv3 and then build it and give the built binary to you (and a permission to use it), you cannot force me to give you the source code for that build because I never gave you a GPL licensed binary.

If you were to take my GPLv3 source code and distribute a build of it however, you would have to license your binaries under GPLv3, because that’s the terms of the license I provided the source code to you under. Your users would then have the right to request the source code of those binaries from you. And if you released the build under an incompatible license, I (but not the users) could sue you for violating my license.

Their previous versions, still being under the GPL, would require them to release a change to make it usable on desktops.

License violations are usually not resolved by making the violator comply retroactively, just going forward. And it’s the copyright holder (so BitWarden themselves) who needs to force the violator to comply.

^* this is the relevant part of the CA:

By submitting a Contribution, you assign to Bitwarden all right, title, and interest in any copyright in the Contribution and you waive any rights, including any moral rights or database rights, that may affect our ownership of the copyright in the Contribution.

It is followed by a workaround license for parts of the world where copyright cannot be given up.

That depends a lot on how the license gets interpreted and how license violations are handled by the local law. The argument for why the end user cannot do anything about GPL violation is that the violated contract is between upstream and the “bad” developer - the upstream project gave the bad developer access to their source code under the condition that the license stays the same. You as the end user only get exposed to the bad developer’s license, so you can’t do anything. It’s the upstream who must force them to extend a proper license to you.

However there was also a case recently where the FSF argued that this interpretation / handling of the situation is against the spirit of GPL and I think they won, so… Yeah, it’s just unclear. Which is normal for legal texts (IMHO intentionally, but I’m not here to rag on lawyers, so I’ll leave it at that).

While I agree with your view (at least when it comes to firmware, especially given that hardware that doesn’t require a firmware upload on boot generally just has the very same proprietary firmware on a built-in memory, so the only difference is that you don’t get to even touch the software running on it), the point of this project is to remove non-libre components from coreboot/libreboot.

It doesn’t differentiate itself from upstream in any other way, so if it fails to do the one thing it was made to do, then that’s in fact a newsworthy fact.

To be fair, giving a company that’s been failing to get themed icons to work on Android for almost four years now less than a month to make a significant change to a core part of their software is… quite weird?

Like, the EU usually gives companies at least half a year to comply with smaller demands than this, because companies with such a huge bureaucracy load wouldn’t even be able to change an app logo in such a short amount of time.

I do not know of any such dongle, but I’d like to ask you a question if you don’t mind: are you looking for a dongle with open-source firmware, or would a dongle that has its (proprietary) firmware stored in some onboard memory be acceptable?

The second option wouldn’t require you to install any proprietary firmware on your computer, but you’d still rely on the proprietary firmware for the device to run. And it might also exist, unlike a dongle with FOSS firmware.

I know this isn’t Reddit, but r/peopleliveincities… When 90% of desktop users use Windows, it’s going to both be the most targeted by malware developers and have the highest chance of being operated by someone who doesn’t understand enough about computers to recognize that the shiny calculator app that just popped up after visiting a very legit Nigerian prince’s crowdfunding page probably shouldn’t need admin access.

And speaking of user error, I’m willing to bet that basic security practices like using full disk encryption, SecureBoot, some MAC layer (provided by antivirus on Windows, AppArmor/SELinux on Linux) and regularly applying security updates are way more common over in the Windows land - if I was in a situation where there was one completely randomly selected Windows PC and one also completely randomly selected Linux PC, and my life depended on being able to gain access to either of them (some kind of really messed up Saw trap? idk), I would definitely bet my life on the Linux one being misconfigured.

Don’t get me wrong, Linux can make for a very secure and private OS, but most installs most definitely cannot be described as such - just look at the popularity of random unverified PPAs on Ubuntu derivatives or AUR packages on Arch.

manufacturers can put it where your hand naturally rests, meaning that you can unlock the phone BEFORE you have even taken it out of your pocket.

Idk, my “unlock” finger naturally rests wherever the fingerprint scanner is on my phone. When I had a rear fingerprint scanner, I used to have my phone’s bottom right corner planted into my palm near the thumb and used the index finger to support its back near the scanner, so I was always ready to unlock it.

Now that I have an under-screen scanner, I use my pinky as a “shelf” for the phone’s bottom side, ring finger to hold it on the far side and index finger along the near side (which makes me suspect this grip would work for in-power-button scanners too), and that makes my thumb naturally rest exactly on the spot where the scanner is. With (one) tap to wake, I have no problem unlocking the phone while taking it out of my pocket - literally just a quick double tap. Although it’s true that you can’t unlock the phone directly in the pocket like this, because the proximity sensor should prevent the tap to wake from working.

I used to have a phone with a scanner in the power button too, but I can’t remember how I held it - I don’t think it was the same way as now, because I’m pretty sure I never used to rest my thumb on screen like this.

But it’s a design for designs - it tells you how to design your own UIs, it doesn’t dictate what for example a calculator app should look like. You can follow Material Design and still end up with a terrible UI design.

Surely that’s enough for some distinction, right?

So now I’m looking at that kind of parasitic situation with this FRP bypass lock. It’s almost as if the manufacturer wants phones to be thrown in the garbage so users are forced to buy from them rather than aftermarket. Noooooo. /s

It’s a theft deterrent, so it would be kind of pointless if there was an intentional way to disable it other than to log in with the owner’s account. The people providing the tools to bypass FRP want their cut of the stolen goods, that’s all.

I’m not saying that your specific phone is stolen (although if you got it in this state… yeah, it most likely is, FRP triggers when you do a factory reset from the recovery instead of going through settings), but you have to understand that what you want is exactly what a thief would want, and the proce of the tools reflects that.

Your mileage may vary - your experience might be different for one reason or another

Google definitely has the ability to do that, but I don’t believe it’s currently happening. First, it could get them in pretty big trouble in parts of the world that have the concept of consumer protection if anyone ever got ahold of any proof (and Google seems pretty terrible at keeping secrets). Second, have you seen ANY negative review of a phone? Every time I was researching which phone to buy, all the reviews were always very positive and avoided talking about its weak spots.

For example, my old Nokia 5.3 - every review I found, both in English and in my native language, made the phone sound like it is an acceptable phone for its price - nothing terrible and nothing outstanding. I doubt most of them even tried using half the features, because the rear fingerprint scanner was completely unusable (it got a nice 50/50 success rate if the air was dry and I had perfectly clean non-sweaty fingers, and plummeted down to maybe 10% success rate if any of these conditions wasn’t met), the touchscreen had ghost touch issues in even slightly humid air (meanwhile other phones work fine even with droplets of water on the screen in light rain), the camera app took 5 - 10 seconds to be able to take a picture from cold start (and Nokia/HMD didn’t bother to keep it in memory like other OEMs).

The last point might not sound like much, but it actually made me pretty much stop taking photos because anything that moves at all was simply a no go unless I had quite a bit of time to set up. I took a grand total of 732 photos and 28 videos over the three years I had that phone, which is ridiculously few compared to the over 6k photos I took with my previous Xiaomi phone. (talking about the 8k photos I took in a single year with my current phone would be cheating, literally any phone camera would look like a technical miracle to me after Nokia’s shitshow).

(edit: also, after one of the updates, the camera app would often get killed after taking a photo and the photo would be lost - so if you really wanted to take a photo of something, you would often have to try several times until it actually saved it. This was never fixed in the later updates, and the final update even introduced a fun feature where factory reset is now guaranteed to irreversibly brick the device in case you wanted to sell it. This is confirmed by HMD to be a wontfix because the phone is now EOL)

Oh, and the promised updates (it was Android One ffs) were all about a year late and generally very poor quality (also security updates were sparse), but that’s not something a reviewer could tell at the time.

Sorry about the rant, my experience just made me really hate HMD/Nokia. The main point is that all the reviews were incredibly positive even for a crappy phone and a brand that doesn’t seem to be paying off the reviewers - even tiny local reviewers who couldn’t have possibly be on HMD’s radar were way too excited about it.

And my last point: we’re not talking about reviewers here. This is about “#TeamPixel”, Google’s “organic” marketing campaign. They get a phone and hype it up, they’re not even meant to compare it to other stuff.

The data collection can just as easily be done by the game itself, the launcher doesn’t have any special privileges

It’s even worse, they’re not getting paid. These shills only get rewarded by getting the phones slightly before general availability (but after actual reviewers)

How is it open source?

How is it not? Open source doesn’t mean you have to accept other people’s code. And it is perfectly valid to only dump code for every release, even some GNU projects (like GCC) used to work that way. Hell, there’s even a book about the two different approaches in open source.

So whatever benefit you were hoping to get from Nvidia’s kernel modules being open source probably is not there.

It allowed the actual in-tree nouveau kernel module to take the code for interacting with the GSP firmware to allow changing GPU clock speed - in other words no more being stuck on the lowest possible frequency like with the GTX 10 series cards. Seems like a pretty decent benefit to me.

What’s Steve?

The Quick Share option missing is weird - Nearby Share/Quick Share is supposed to be available on every Android 6 or newer device since roughly 2020. And it’s supposed to be able to automatically figure out a reasonable way to connect the devices (LAN if they are in the same network, Bluetooth or WiFi Direct otherwise).

Oooh, so that’s where uncle works

They’re not doing a recall, but that doesn’t mean they won’t somehow compensate big OEMs for their warranty issues.