Wayland is a significant improvement in one specific area (and it's not this one).
All programs in X were trusted and had access to the same drawing space. This meant that one program could see what another one was drawing. Effectively this meant that any compromised program could see your whole screen if you were using X.
Wayland has a different architecture where programs only have access to the resources to draw their own stuff, and then a separate compositor joins all the results together.
Wayland does nothing about the REST of the application permission model - ability to access files, send network requests etc. For that you need more sandboxing e.g. Flatpak, Containers, VMs
It's saying that the action of calling an async function (e.g. one you've written) isn't itself a yield point. The only yield points are places where we the call would block for external events like IO or time - `await asyncio.sleep(100)` would be one of those.
This is true, but surely fairly irrelevant? Any async function call has somewhere in its possible call tree one of those yield points. If it didn't then it wouldn't need to be marked async.
A good manufacturing process (with the appropriate level of testing) should result in yield variations, not quality variations. i.e. if the line is running less well for some reason, then you end up throwing more in the bin rather than shipping bad product.
I would only consider doing stuff on-prem because of services like Cloudflare. You can have some of the global features like edge-caching while also getting the (cost) benefits of on-prem.
I agree, I think that’s the intended interpretation — but I’m disappointed that’s not their stated redline then, though.
The ask there is for a future in app stores beyond Core Devices, not just for Rebble specifically. That is a call for Core to open their platform; what they have now is a call for Core to open their platform to them.
There's all sorts of things you can do if you don't care about money.
The more interesting point is that if you aren't driven by investors to care about short term financial stuff (stock prices) then you can make long term decisions. Caring about your customers is a classic one for this - costs you money in the short term, but in the long term gets you a great customer base.
They care about money. They definitely care about money. They have achieved a steady cash flow that can sustain their business forever, unless something really bad happens.
What they don't care is the endless growth that MBA guys always try to achieve, and the quarterly profit driven decision making that ultimately destroys their customers loyalty, for short term profit.
A business can be very profitable without being exploitative. It's the people in Wall Street who can't seem to understand this. For them a hundred million dollars of profit is good if last year it was only fifty million dollars, and a dying business if last year it was also a hundred million dollars. It really makes no sense.
Just thinking out loud, but I wonder if Wall Street would be less awful about ruining companies if we were able to get a more meaningful dividend out of your average company? So perhaps the stock price itself stays relatively flat or boring, but the dividend paid out makes up for it. Or perhaps it would be the exact same issue and they’d be squeezing companies to maximize dividends.
I just know that I expect stock prices to go up because most “dividend stocks” give such a small amount of money per share.
This is the magic of the decentralized, invisible-handed, "free" market. Nobody (in particular) tells you what to do, and (ideally) you reach a canonical equilibrium which may (under some idealised circumstances) be optimal (in some sense).
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts this would be the cat's pyjamas. I shan't deny it's mathematically elegant, and also feels good in many ways, but the real trouble is it's exceptionally hard to form a watertight argument for an alternative.
Put another way, the appeal of the free market isn't so much in its correctness as it is in its simplicity. I can personally attest that it's sumple enough for any fool to understand, in an area of economics where it's devilishly difficult to establish anything solidly.
I say all this as someone who is a big fan of Valve and their work, deapite otherwise being a foss zealot, just because they throw a bone to our sort.
My impression of this is that it is partially a tax policy issue.
Dividends are taxed differently and higher than capital gains. So given a choice between a stock buyback and a dividend, often a buyback makes more sense.
People who are capable of saying "I have enough now" will self-select out of the activist investor class. Automatically, the people with the most power to influence publicly traded companies will be people who demand endless growth.
This sort of thing is why I think we need heavy taxes to limit wealth accumulation. Money is power, and the amount of power a person with ten+ figure wealth wields is too much for any one person to have, let alone one who was never elected.
This is sortof a function of buybacks vs dividends. Like, if the market rewards growth (in terms of share prices) then line must go up forever. If you are getting a steady stream of inflation adjusted cash (i.e. dividends), then you can afford to care less about number go up.
As someone who has big hands (not chunky, just long fingers), I find the Steam Deck sooo comfortable and satisfying to hold. I still use my Nintendo Switch from time to time, but holding it now feels like it was designed for a child (which it was!).
If you buy a Steam Deck and just use it as a handheld console and never select "reboot to desktop mode" it will act just like a closed console. The exceptions compared to something like a Switch:
- For some games (usually those oriented around keyboard and mouse) you need to go and select one of the community control configurations, and maybe tweak it a bit. For example, I needed to do this with FTL to make it easily playable
- Occasionally (and I've basically had to do this once, in my 2+ years with a Steam Deck) you need to go and select a different Proton version to make it work. ProtonDB tells you what to do
This is all rare though. The vast majority of games have a control setup for using a controller, and they definitely do if they've ever been released on console. And they will Just Work.
There's a circular opportunity though - if the SteamOS market share gets anywhere, then it might become worth it for these developers to support anti-cheat on the that platform. Some systems (notably BattleEye) actually have Linux support, they just need to enable it, but there's no incentive for them to do so.
> Some systems (notably BattleEye) actually have Linux support, they just need to enable it, but there's no incentive for them to do so.
This isn't really true. As GP said, there isn't a kernel level anti cheat for linux. You can switch a flick on BattleEye to run on linux but it wont be a kernel level as it is on windows. So there is an incentive for them to not turn it on because it simply is the worse version than the windows one. As far as I know even on windows you get cheats even if it is kernel level. Meaning, allowing linux you'd probably be flooded with cheaters if you already get them on windows.
> Meaning, allowing linux you'd probably be flooded with cheaters if you already get them on windows.
There's an easy way to not get cheaters, or at least to slow down their impact: stop making your games "free to play". When cheaters have to buy 60€ games everytime they get b&, eventually they'll run out of money.
If anything the Tarkov ban treadmill is a way to drive sales. Even if some of them get disputed as fraudulent due to stolen card numbers, BSG may still come out ahead.
Battleeye games get flooded with cheaters no matter what. On most anti cheats is the same anyways. Just see tarkov for a battleeye game with rampant cheaters
Probably bad cache headers configuration. Even with Cloudflare in front it could be forwarding every request to the backend if the cache headers are misconfigured...
All programs in X were trusted and had access to the same drawing space. This meant that one program could see what another one was drawing. Effectively this meant that any compromised program could see your whole screen if you were using X.
Wayland has a different architecture where programs only have access to the resources to draw their own stuff, and then a separate compositor joins all the results together.
Wayland does nothing about the REST of the application permission model - ability to access files, send network requests etc. For that you need more sandboxing e.g. Flatpak, Containers, VMs