Is there a reason this requirement doesn’t apply to iMessage as well?
Obviously taken to an extreme it’s bad, but I think it’s fine to have a function that can do one thing two or more different ways and ignore a certain parameter if one of the ways doesn’t need it. I’ve done some programming against the Win32 API and this is what jumped to mind for me, and I think it’s the typical case here. If I were designing from scratch I might split it into n functions that do it one way, but it’s such a small difference I wouldn’t fret over it. And of course making a change to the Windows API is an undertaking, probably not worth it in most cases.
Ok, but we all should admit: .net is a terrible name.
IMO the best way to ensure that traffic always goes through a VPN is to use network namespaces. The wireguard website has an article describing the process. In a nutshell, you create a dedicated namespace to put the physical interface in, create the wireguard interface in that namespace, then move the wireguard interface to the root (“normal”) namespace. That way the only way to get traffic out without the VPN is to run a program in that dedicated namespace.
Open-source software (OSS) is computer software that is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose.
I had really hoped that by time we would finally have got beyond good & evil.
Not saying people should buy Google phones, but I did replace my 5a’s screen with iFixit’s guide. Took one evening with no prior phone repair expertise.
I mean, I think it’s a silly point, but yeah, ultimately we’re going to give it all back
without jailbreaking … thanks to the 2 coretrust bugs
I think you do not understand what these words mean
Bummer! Best of luck with the new one.
Check out Navidrome. Also the audio streaming section on awesome-selfhosted
knock yourself out
I mean, just don’t click anything in a phishing e-mail
If you don’t like him, you can just skip his episodes & not miss much.
it removes my exclusivity of ownership over my own code.
Your statement is false. It does not remove or diminish your exclusivity of ownership over your own code. That’s just not how copyright works. I don’t know how else to put it.
I’d gladly pay them a smaller fee
If I ever wrote code you wanted to use in a game you wanted to sell, and you reached out to me, I’d just let you use the code under a different license for free. My main concern is that corporations would freeload off my work. Some people wouldn’t even do it for any fee. I think that’s silly, but they get to set the terms of how we use their code.
selling copies of my software is largely how I make money
That’s great! You are part of a tiny group of people who manage to make money this way, and that’s no small accomplishment. More power to you, and I wish you more success. If you feel comfortable revealing it here, what game(s) do you sell?
removes my exclusivity of ownership
Again, using GPL’d code does not remove your ownership of the code you wrote. Using other people’s code in general does remove your exclusivity of ownership, regardless of license, since the code other people wrote belongs to them.
Essentially GPL removes a large way to gain money.
$375 million in today’s dollars would cover (adjusted for inflation) the marketing and development of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_video_games_to_develop