• 0 Posts
  • 16 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle






  • o wow didn’t know this. such horrible design decision! So if I understood correctly ALL the apps that want to screenshot need to write independent code for each desktop environment??? I was just mostly ignoring Wayland until becoming mature, but now I actively dislike it with passion.

    So, if this is true and I understand correctly, it means that if I chose to use Xfce (as I do), I’ll have to hope really hard that zoom, skype, slack, discord… decide to provide support for not only linux,… but XFCE or give up and abandon XFCE? yeah f*** Wayland, they really didn’t think about the open source community when designing their solution. I don’t wat to even think of people that use other smaller desktop managers…

    I mean, screen sharing is basic functionality these days, in the interview for my current job I needed to use… I think it was teams. Is not even something you can chose, is bad enough to be exclusive linux user as it is, always wondering if in such cases something will not work.

    Honestly, long live Xorg. if deprecated and I have to switch to gnome/kde or lose functionality I might as well switch to windows after 20 something years of not using it.



  • you seem to know what you are talking about and I looked into this very long ago, maybe you can help me understand.

    From what I can understand reading most of the article this forces browsers to accept the certificates, but it doesn’t force the websites to use them, right?

    So what is stopping Firefox from showing a warning (like the lock icon being orange, but it could also be a more intrusive message) stating that the certificate was issued by a country and/or doesn’t fullfil modern security standards in case one of these CAs is used?

    On top of that, the CA doesn’t really encrypt the private key of the domain, it just adds a signature stating that the message with the salt and the public key are legit, right? everyone seems to think the government itself will be able to passively see the traffic, but if I remember correctly they would have to gateway the whole transaction (I’m guessing the browser will also have a cache of keys and this could become a bit tricky to do in a global way)

    But of course we all know how technologically illiterate governments are (there could be one good, but there will be some “less good” for sure). So yeah, it does sound like a horrible idea to begin with. Because if a CA starts being insecure nowadays browsers can just remove them and go with their life, but if there is a law forcing browsers wouldn’t be able to.

    I’m just curious about the specifics in case I’m outdated on what I remember.



  • topperharlie@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mlNo context
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    hmmm… I’m pretty sure I’ve been around since before YouTube started and don’t have any idea, so I still think is the case.

    I think people tend to not understand how big internet is, even back then. This makes it difficult to know which memes really made it all the way to become THAT popular (and even those are not know by everyone, some people just don’t follow memes)