Been enjoying a Logitech MX Master 3S myself, it’s definitely a nice mouse to handle, but it’s also not something that could be called particularly small.

That goddamn Doctor Benny’s box gets me every time, the fact that they even remixed the theme to match is just glorious.

And it’s still entirely unrelated to my point, since SUSE will remain the trademark in question regardless of what’s actually contained in OpenSUSE.

But yes, the free/open-source spins of things tend to have somewhat differing content compared to the commercial offering, usually for licensing or support reasons.
E.g. CentOS (when it still was a real thing)/AlmaLinux/etc supporting hardware that regular RHEL has dropped support for, while also not distributing core RedHat components like the subscription manager.

Not at all what my point was. There’s indeed plenty of Open-something (or Libre-something) projects under the sun, but no free/open spins of commercial projects named simply “Open<Trademarked company name / commercial offering>”.

To be fair, OpenSUSE is the only project with a name like that, so it makes some sense that they’d want it changed.
There’s no OpenRedHat, no OpenNovell, no OpenLinspire, etc.

Well, one available case you can look at is Uru: Live / Myst Online, currently running under the name Myst Online: Uru Live: Again.

They open-sourced their Dirt/Headspin/Plasma engine, which required stripping out - among other things - the PhysX code from it.

I assume both the $20 and $25 prices were during alpha/early access. Was thinking entirely of release pricing.

It’s reasonably easy to guess exactly what you paid for the game, since the only change in price since launch was a $5 bump in January last year. It’s never been on sale.

It releases while I’m on the way back home from a trip to Manchester, might have to bring my Deck so I can play on the flight/train.

Both the rendezvous/mailbox and transport servers are available under an MIT license, though not every client makes it easy to use your own rendezvous.

I personally use the rymdport GUI client and the rust CLI.

One thing you can test is to apply a Chrome user-agent on Firefox when visiting YouTube. In my personal experience that actually noticeably improves the situation.

I’ve been hoping to find a non-PHP alternative to Nextcloud for a while, but unfortunately I’ve yet to find one which supports my base requirements for the file storage.

Due to some quirks with my setup, my backing storage consists of a mix of local folders, S3 buckets, SMB/SFTP mounts (with user credential login), and even an external WebDav server.
Nextcloud does manage such a thing phenomenally, while all the alternatives I’ve tested (including a Radicale backed by rclone mounts) tend to fall completely to pieces as soon as more than one storage backend ends up getting involved, especially when some of said backends need to be accessed with user-specific credentials.

The first official implementation of directly connecting WhatsApp to another chat system - using APIs built specifically for purpose instead of third-party bridges - was indeed done against the Matrix protocol, as part of a collaboration in testing ways to satisfy the interoperability requirements of the EU Digital Services Act.
So not a case of a third-party bridge trying to act as a WhatsApp client enough to funnel communication, but instead using an official WhatsApp endpoint developed - by them - explicitly for interoperation with another chat system.

I think the latest update on the topic is the FOSDEM talk that Matthew held this February.

Edit: It’s worth noting that the goal here is to even support direct E2EE communication between users of WhatsApp and Matrix, something that’s not likely to happen with the first consumer-available release.

Well, the first tests for interconnected communication with WhatsApp were done with Matrix, so that’s a safe bet.

I’ve heard quite a lot of discourse in regards to unlawful gameplay, I just personally have trouble seeing how it could ever be non-aggressive, it’s by its very definition antagonistic after all. Could definitely vary in the amount of aggression though, and CIG’s definition of “unaggressive unlawful” seems to be stealth - which I can definitely get behind.

CIG does at least seem to finally be adding more versions of actually non-aggressive lawful missions, not just the various flavours of hand-box delivery missions we have today.

To be fair, I’d consider a silent assassination to be nowhere near as aggressive as a full frontal assault.

With how much security they’re speaking about, it does makes sense that even “low-aggression” unlawful activities would still potentially involve a whole bunch of combat.

Version requirements? No rules!

He won’t be allowed to perform at Eurovision with the Windows 95 name/trademark/logo, so it would be hilarious if he switches to a name like Linuxman during it.

This looks really odd in relation to other fediverse software; Why /magic and required to be on the root of the domain? Why hard-require routing the domain part of the user ID when .well-known/webfinger exists? Why is there a X-Open-Web-Auth header which the spec only describes as “its purpose is unclear from the code”?
So many questions.

I definitely like the idea of distributed sign-in, Solid did a decent work of that many years ago after all. This particular proposal just looks rather odd.

Here’s a .jxl JPEG-XL upload I did on Lemmy three days ago;
https://lemmy.ananace.dev/pictrs/image/ad4e745e-0135-4cc3-889c-052600828d82.jxl