I'd never really thought about it before, but Enter to advance to the next field field and Ctrl + Enter to submit the whole form (which is the typical keyboard shortcut for submitting the form while a multi-line text input control has focus) does have a certain appeal to it.
The overloading of return to either send a message or add a newline has become really annoying since chat apps (and then now AI) have become popular.
You have to keep a mental context of whether you need to hold shift before you press return. See also: every message I've ever sent that ended with I' because I fat-fingered the ' key while typing a contraction.
Terminal keyboards generally used to have two separate ENTER (submit the form to the mainframe) and RETURN (insert a line break) keys. I mean, even the original 101-key PC keyboard has them: the RETURN key above the right Shift, and the ENTER key of the numpad.
Shift+Enter will usually enter a newline in a message without triggering send... At least that's the convention used most of the time. No guarantees on specific applications, just my own experience with this.
Arcane build system. I mean, I guess it technically supports CMake these days, but I have never been able to get anyone else's Qt project to build without much gnashing of teeth.
Emulated native widgets try for pixel-perfect, but tend to feel wrong somehow.
> Gtk
Outside of a Linux/Gtk native environment, Gtk applications are awful. Take GIMP on macOS, for example: it's had window focus issues (export dialog getting lost behind the main application window) literally ever since Gtk on macOS dropped the XQuartz dependence. And that's the flagship application for the toolkit.
So, your critique of Gtk sounds convincing, but about Qt, you seem to be admitting they're offering a less-horrible way to build than how things used to be.
I looked at this: https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/cmake-get-started.html
... and I'll admit they seem to be hiding some nasty stuff under the hood. But it still seems workable. I guess the devil is in the details?
Not quite. Google v Oracle ducked the question of API copyrightability (that was one of the main complaints of Thomas's dissent), instead saying that Google's use of the APIs were very definitely fair use in a sufficiently general manner that any clean room implementation of API for compatibility is very definitely fair use.
No, contributors to FOSS generally do not give away their rights. They contribute to the project with the expectation that their contributions will be distributed under its license, yes, but individual contributors still hold copyright over their contributions. That's why relicensing an existing FOSS project is such a headache (widely held to require every major contributor to sign off on it), and why many major corporate-backed “FOSS” projects require contributors to sign a “contributor license agreement” (CLA) which typically reassigns copyright to the corporate project owner so they can rugpull the license whenever they want.
Stealing from FOSS is awful, because it completely violates the social contract under which that code was shared.
You're still mixing up contributor license agreements with the kind of arrangements where the copyright is actually transferred and assigned "away" from the creator to another copyright holder (generally a copyright assignment agreement). This is far less common than CLAs.
I don't know what you mean by a rugpull exactly, but of course in theory you can grant/obtain very extensive rights under a CLA as well, including eg the permission to relicense your contributions under whatever terms the licensee prefers. CLAs are a great way to centralize the IPR in an open source project for practical purposes like license enforcement, but in case the CLA terms allow it, the central governing entity could also obtain the right to switch the license even to a, say, commercial one. (Such terms would usually be a red flag for contributors though.) And in any case, that kind of CLA wouldn't still close off the code already released under the previous open-source license, and neither would it prevent you from licensing your own contributions under terms of your choice.
Here in the north east of Scotland, I have to switch back and forth between Google Maps and Apple Maps. Apple Maps provides vastly superior residential navigation (it understands that many houses only have names, not numbers, and knows what those names are), but commercial information (where to find a café, are they open, etc.) is often incomplete or outright missing. It seems like Apple have coughed up for POI licensing from OS Maps or similar, but they're limited to whatever business information they can get from Yelp.
yeah, Apple maps isnt so good for tourist info, at least once you leave the big cities. I just use the web version of google maps if Im out travelling somewhere remote
Not to mention that those devices all support regular EPUBs out of the box, and so you can still put new content on them today.
Of course, you'll get a bit more out of them if you convert your EPUBs to KEPUBs with Kepubify[0], but the point remains that Kobos are supplemented by their cloud/connected features, not inherently dependent on them.
> easier to do bad things like "charge for individual internet user in a home."
This idea comes up in every HN conversation about IPv6, and so I suppose this time it's my turn to point out RFC 8981[0]. tl;dr: typically, machines which receive IPv6 address assignment via SLAAC (functional equivalent of DHCP) periodically cycle their addresses. Supposed to offer pretty effective protection against host-counting.
> Gun Rocket also stands out as my most lucrative personal project.
> I tried to boot up Gun Rocket to play it. But it refused. No matter how hard I clicked the game would not open.
> After trying a few times I realize if the ship isn't moving for about 0.5 seconds it explodes. Has that bug existed all this time? Oh bother. I hope not!
Grinds my gears that the game has continued to be listed for sale on Steam with years-old negative reviews pointing out exactly these issues, but the developer still has the gall to act surprised about them.
Hi there! I'm Jack. I wrote this article and created Gun Rocket. I can add more on my particular point.
When Gun Rocket launched, it did ok (maybe $100s). It made me feel great, but nothing life-changing. Most of the money I made was selling the distribution rights to a publisher (low $1000s). Again made me feel good but nothing crazy. They made some changes like a splash screen ad that I did not like. When that contract term was up I focused on removing that garbage. Idk when the explosion bug was introduced, but the point is I was surprised and immensely frustrated when I found it because the history of this game left my care and came back.
I agree that this bug existing for a long time reflects terribly on me. I hope that fixing it late is better than never fixing it.
I was gifted a Swiss Gear backpack when I went off to school (over fifteen years ago now). It was good – albeit very heavy – for the first two or three years. Then the soft surfaces started wearing through, the mesh water bottle pocket on the side wore through, and finally one of the straps snapped. I started trying to figure out how to make a claim against their legendary warranty process... and found that at that time (2013 or 2014), in Canada, their backpacks had at most a 1-year limited warranty. Nuts!
It does seem like Swiss Gear are now directly represented in Canada (rather than being represented by a third party, like they were a decade ago), and their backpacks now have a five-year warranty. But I guess my point is: if you don't live in the US, make sure that the things that a brand is famous for hold true in your region, too.
reply