If you have to configure the host to support the client rather than the client supporting unknown existing hosts, then what you have is a terminal, not a terminal emulator.
In 1970 all terminals were their own thing, tied to a single host somewhere in the same building by a dedicated serial cable. The terminal didn't move or connect to random other hosts, and the host had to be specially configured to work with any terminal connected to it.
Since then, a few terminal definitions have become standardized across all hosts for decades, and terminals are emulators that emulate one of those 40 year established standard definitions, because today terminals connect to countless unknown new random and varied hosts that the terminal user didn't install and configure before connecting, and may not even have the admin rights to do so after the fact either, and even if they do, it's wildly and inexcusably awful to require that.
It's entirely backwards for a terminal today to default to asserting it's own new $TERM, and to characterize the problems caused by this as "the user forgot to do this totally unreasonable thing" that no other terminal or terminal emulator has required for 40 years.
It's 100% a bug. The fact that it's intentional just means it's a design goal bug.
Man it would rule so much if programmers could manage not to be assholes by default so much of the time.
It's ironic that the more ignorant one is the one calling another ignorant.
Alright I've had my fun with the name-calling. I will now explain the stunningly obvious. Not a thing anyone should have to for someone so sharp as yourself but there we are...
For someone to produce that text after growing up in an English speaking environment, they would indeed be comically inept communicators. Which is why the more reasonable assumption is that English is not in fact their native language.
Not merely the more generous assumption. Being generous by default would be a better character trait than not, but still arguably a luxury. But also simply the more reasonable assumption by plain numbers and reasoning. So, not only were you a douche, you had to go out of your way to select a less likely possibility to make the douche you wanted to be fit the situation.
In a few years when you're not 12 any more, you'll be embarassed by this. When that happens, don't sweat it, we were all 12 at some point. I'm just lucky that for me that was before the internet.
What are you trying to communicate in this comment? That you have spite for your users? Why? That you consider not bothering with Firefox support to be a good way to, what, express your spite? Do I have that right?
I support baseline browsers unless it’s not feasible otherwise. Sometimes things just aren’t possible in certain browsers. It’s expensive and difficult to design and implement things that fail gracefully. I’m not actually spiteful towards Firefox or its users; I _am_ spiteful toward other developers who feel they are entitled to leaving hostile comments for free hobby projects that don’t support their browser of choice for frankly technical reasons.
I was being facetious for rhetorical purposes. The OP I was replying to was unfairly hostile. I will also hazard a guess that they don’t have much experience writing sophisticated software for browsers.
I responded with the same sort of hostility to make my point that you’re not going to win “hearts and minds” for your cause by insulting developers for relying on browser standards that aren’t yet baseline. My point is that I am not persuaded by hostility, and I suspect other developers aren’t either. Users like this give their browser of choice a bad reputation when they make it part of their hostile identity.
That is already way too much as far as I'm concerned. It's not that it's difficult, it's that it's arbitrary and a form of commanded speech or action. Smallness and easiness isn't an excuse.
If you write a story, there must be a character in it somewhere that reminds kids not to smoke. That's all. It's very easy.
I actually don't mind mandating the market take reasonable actions. The EU mandating USB C was an excellent move that materially improved things.
However I think mandated actions should to the greatest extent possible be minimal, privacy preserving, and have an unambiguous goal that is clearly accomplished. This legislation fails in that regard because it mandates sharing personal information with third parties where it could have instead mandated queries that are strictly local to the device.
Under no circumstances should we be “mandating” how hobbyists write their software. If you want to scope this to commercial OSes, be my guest. That’s not what was done here.
I'm not sure where the line between "hobby" and "professional" lies when it comes to linux distributions. Many of them are nonprofit but not really hobbyist at this point. Debian sure feels like a professional product to me (I daily drive it).
We regulate how a hobbyist constructs and uses a radio. We regulate how a hobbyist constructs a shed in his yard or makes modifications to the electrical wiring in his house.
I think mandating the implementation of strictly device local filtering based on a standardized HTTP header (or in the case of apps an attached metadata field) would be reasonably non-invasive and of benefit to society (similar to mandating USB C).
> I'm not sure where the line between "hobby" and "professional" lies when it comes to linux distributions. Many of them are nonprofit but not really hobbyist at this point. Debian sure feels like a professional product to me (I daily drive it).
"Professional" means you're being paid for the work. Debian is free (gratis), contributors are volunteers, and that makes it not professional.
What about Ubuntu? Its a combination of work by volunteers and paid employees, it is distributed by a commercial company, and said company sells support contracts, but the OS itself is free.
And there are developers who are paid to work on various components of linux from the kernel, to Gnome, does that make it professional?
Is Android not professional, because you don't pay for the OS itself, and it is primarily supported by ad revenue?
I would argue they're not, because they're not fully under the responsibility of a commercial entity, because they're open source. Companies can volunteer employees to the project, even a project they started themselves, but the companies and employees can come and go. Open source projects exist independently as public goods. Ultimately, it just takes anyone in the world to fork a project to exclude everybody else from its development.
Mint started off as Ubuntu. Same project, with none of the support contracts, no involvement from Canonical needed at the end of the day, etc.
On a practical level, it doesn't make sense to put thousands of dollars per user in liabilities to non-compensated volunteers whatever the case may be with regards to the employment of other contributors.
At some point it seems to devolve from a meaningful discussion about how things should be done into a semantic argument (which are almost always pointless).
> it doesn't make sense to put thousands of dollars per user in liabilities to non-compensated volunteers
I agree when it comes to individuals. But it probably does make sense to hold formally recognized groups (such as nonprofits) accountable to various consumer laws. I think the idea odd that Windows, RHEL, Ubuntu, and Debian should all be regulated differently within a single jurisdiction given that they seem to me largely equivalent in purpose.
You've confused and confabulated like 11 different things there. None of what you said has anything to do with either what I said or what the law says.
The way this currently exists is basically unenfoceable because the critical terms are not even defined. It's not even ultimately intelligible, which is a prerequisite to enforcing, or even being able to tell where it does and does not apply, and whether some covered entity is or is not in compliance.
People are interesting, and religion is a thing people do.
In this case there is quasi-religious imagery but you as the reader aren't actually supposed to be mystical about the god/devil in the story the way the characters themselves are. It's not C. S. Lewis
In 1970 all terminals were their own thing, tied to a single host somewhere in the same building by a dedicated serial cable. The terminal didn't move or connect to random other hosts, and the host had to be specially configured to work with any terminal connected to it.
Since then, a few terminal definitions have become standardized across all hosts for decades, and terminals are emulators that emulate one of those 40 year established standard definitions, because today terminals connect to countless unknown new random and varied hosts that the terminal user didn't install and configure before connecting, and may not even have the admin rights to do so after the fact either, and even if they do, it's wildly and inexcusably awful to require that.
It's entirely backwards for a terminal today to default to asserting it's own new $TERM, and to characterize the problems caused by this as "the user forgot to do this totally unreasonable thing" that no other terminal or terminal emulator has required for 40 years.
It's 100% a bug. The fact that it's intentional just means it's a design goal bug.
reply