No excitement here for any “discount” announcements—just cynicism about our device freedoms being restricted by two duopolies.
Readit Newsjim201 commented on Apple Mini Apps Partner Program developer.apple.com/progr... · Posted by u/soheilpro
jim201 commented on Android's sideloading limits are its most anti-consumer move makeuseof.com/androids-si... · Posted by u/josephcsible
Antitrust action is badly needed in this area. It is ridiculous that I need permission from my device manufacturer to install software on hardware I own. There is no viable alternative than to live in Apple and Google’s ecosystems. This duopoly cannot be allowed to keep this much control of the mobile platforms.
jim201 commented on Malicious versions of Nx and some supporting plugins were published github.com/nrwl/nx/securi... · Posted by u/longcat
Deleted Comment
jim201 commented on Malicious versions of Nx and some supporting plugins were published github.com/nrwl/nx/securi... · Posted by u/longcat
Pardon my ignorance, but isn’t code signing designed to stop attacks exactly like this? Even if an npm token was compromised, I’m really surprised there was no other code signing feature in play to prevent these publish events.
jim201 commented on I'm never going back to Matrix shkspr.mobi/blog/2025/07/... · Posted by u/Bogdanp
This reads like a hatchet job sponsored by the many verticals which stand to crumble once chat is democratized and federated. Just look at how hard apple is fighting to uphold their snotty elitist chat ecosystem, refusing to allow integration with android. So whoever is paying you for this hatchet job, I hope the 30 pieces of silver are well spent. If this is ragebait, congratulations, you got me!!!
I sympathize—the web needs a decentralized chat platform. And Matrix seems to be the current best solution. But ignoring real issues with the platform is actively harmful.
For example, if you’re active in any FOSS channels, you’re likely to receive spam invites to rooms containing illegal content (with disturbing room images and names that appear on the invite). This has been a known issue for years, and a high visibility issue about it (with responses from Matrix’s managing director) from last summer remains open and largely unaddressed.
This issue link is for the Element client, but it contains links to several related proposals for home servers, clients, and the protocol, many of which are still open/completely unresolved. Notably, the MSC related to invite blocking via policy servers or suggestions about ignoring invites via client settings.
jim201 commented on A media company demanded a license fee for an Open Graph image I used alistairshepherd.uk/writi... · Posted by u/cheeaun
“This undermines the entire point of the open graph protocol (at least for images). If you have to manually review every image that you include then what's the point in it being a machine protocol?”
Bingo.
Ianal but it feels like if you provide an image via an open graph link, you’re implicitly licensing that image to consumers of the Open Graph protocol to be displayed alongside a link/link metadata.
If the media company didn’t have the rights to relicense that image for consumption via Open Graph and/or the original licensor didn’t want their images appearing via Open Graph, that media company shouldn’t be using Open Graph.
That is such a frustrating situation. I hope the courts would have ruled in your favor but I understand why you chose not to test it.
I’m glad that there are distros catering towards less techy people. Linux needs this. But I take issue with selling open source projects that could otherwise be downloaded for free.
The $48 Pro version resells open source software (Blender is mentioned on their website) and slaps on a few themes. Even if legal, this just seems highly unethical.
jim201 commented on Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds wsj.com/tech/apple-violat... · Posted by u/shayneo
I am concerned that the App Store has become the norm. For many young people, iPhones and iPads have been their only computer. Many have never seen a world where app developers can distribute independently. The NYT had an article out about ruling, and the number of people supporting the App Store was astounding.
I think Apple has done a great job marketing the App Store as the reason for the security/UX of their platform, when in reality, it's the OS. It's the OS that requires apps to get permission before accessing my location, it's the OS that isolates apps from each other, it's the OS that provides an easy way to install/uninstall packages.
The confusion between benefits of the OS/benefits of the App Store combined with many peoples' unfamiliarity with third party distribution has made it more difficult to convince people of the merit of these antitrust suits.
I’m interested in how they’re sandboxing C# code. Seems like an engineering problem full of pitfalls. I’ll definitely be peeking at this!