movedx

I agree. MediaWiki is a solid solution and is very easy to setup. You can one-click deploy on DigitalOcean for $10/month and just enable daily snapshots. You can even use a managed DB if you want.

Agreed. Overall I find Confluence an anti-pattern and just obnoxious.

MediaWiki. Is there something wrong with the solution powering Wikipedia? It’s very simple to set up, and you can one-click deploy it on DigitalOcean for $10/month.

Some great stuff in here that I’ll be checking out for sure.

You want CyberChef from GCHQ :-)

I just laughed out loud reading that. He’s absolutely brilliant. Told my wife that too and after laughing she said, “I miss you reading Pratchett in bed. You used to constantly giggle and jiggle the mattress!”

Time to get back to reading his work again, if not because it’s fantastic, but because Terry deserves it.

We miss him greatly.

You might have missed the point being made here.

We, as engineers, can't expect everyone to know what OBS is, download it, learn in, and use it every day to enable their ability to share a sub-section of their monitor (regardless of its size.)

We, as engineers, _are_ expected to make our software easier to use and feature rich. Adding this capability into Zoom or Meet, etc. is a reasonable thing to expect from a software company of note. And people _do_ know what Zoom and Meet are, download them, learn them, and use them every day. Why not implement the feature directly into the software they're already using?

It can do that, yes, but it's a bit more work. There are several GUI hoops you'll have to run through to get that to work, and if you have to adjust it each and every time, before a meeting, then it would become burdensome. But yes, it can be done.

With OBS, you can add an entire screen to your canvas and then add a filter to crop it down to a particular part of that screen. This nets you the same results as the small C++ tool being proposed here.

A lot more work involved, though.

This sounds like a good way of guaranteeing profits and moving the mindset away from just producing good products.

I’m guessing you live in Wales if the castles are that densely populated. It has the highest density of castles in the world.

So far, so good. It's quite nice. It feels very complete and polished. Everything is well thought out and it feels as though it "Just Works" (jinx!!)

I was just looking at their products. Looks like IDEA is aimed at Java developers, but I assume that doesn’t prevent it being used for other languages?

In light of this post, and ignoring Sublime Text as I’ve tried it and don’t like it, what commercial IDEs are worth looking at for a generalist like me who bounces between C, Python, Terraform, YAML, Markdown, and more? I’m on Linux.

A selfie is meant to tell us, your audience, a story about you and the journey you’re on. Selfies are a great tool for telling stories, in fact. One selfie can say a thousand words, and then some.

But a selfie taken and then modified to lie to the audience about your story or your journey is simply a fiction. People create fictions to either lie to themselves or to lie to others. Sometimes they’re not about lying to the audience but just manipulating them.

People’s viewpoints and perceptions are malleable. It’s easy to trick people into thinking something is true. Couple this with the fact a lot of people are gullible and shallow, and suddenly a selfie becomes a sales tool. A marketing gimmick. Now, finally, take advances in AI to make it easier, faster, and more accessible to make highly believable fictions and yes, as you said, the selfie loses its value.

But that’s always been the case since and even before Photoshop. Since and before the silicon microprocessor.

All AI is going to do for selfies is what Photoshop has done for social media “Influencers” — enable more fiction with the goal to transfer wealth from other people.

Thank you for your response, and thank you for your work.

One way that we technical folk can help prevent this is by purchasing a domain that we can call our own and then host a website that's very clear: "If my image or voice is used in a piece of digital media that is not linked here from this domain, it was not produced by me."

That, and cryptographic materials being used to sign stuff too.

I think that's possibly the best we can hope for from a technical perspective as well as waiting for the legal system to catch up.

Do you think making important, widely used open-source software is a good idea when it's being done, for fun? What happens when it's no longer fun, but 150,000 people depend on it for their job?

Imagine Linus Tarvolds stopped working on Linux before there was a foundation to take over because he did it just for fun and no one else wanted to take up the mantle? It's hard to say what the outcome from that would have been... maybe Google would have claimed it entirely and slowly shifted the license to something else?

I appreciate that people can create things for fun, and those things can be open-source, but if someone creates something because it's the right thing to do and not just about fun... well where do we stand now? Should they make it open-source but demand money? Should it be closed-source if the fun-factor is less than 80%? 50%?

Unless a small, dedicated team of capable people agree that your open-source project is worth preserving, allowing it to survive you as the founder, I question the validity of open-sourcing anything for fun unless you design the licence, and more, to enable you to walk away and/or get bored.

Would love to hear your thoughts.

I believe you to be correct. I think it's important that one uses the right tool for the job, regardless of whether or not it's widely adopted or supported.

Personally, I've always created shell scripts too. Or PowerShell scripts if I need Windows based support (like for Golang projects that might see Windows based usage.) I find they're way, way better and easier to work with.

That being said, the only issue preventing me from using shell scripts well is shared code. Like common functions etc. So far I've simply used a common.sh script and sourced/imported it.

Also, what do you do once you have 4-5 shell scripts at the root of your project? I find it gets messy quickly. I need a solution for this.

But yes, I agree shell scripts are generally better.

Does it download an official AMD driver? No. It hasn’t ever done for me across hundreds of Windows installs across hundreds of devices.

I'm using Linux right now, and sadly I only have access to an 80x30 black and white terminal. I'm writing this comment as a raw HTTP request to this site. Send help. I just need colour and at least 1024x968... please help! I wish I could watch videos!

> ... you're saying Linux shouldn't have something...

I said no such thing. You're taking a question and converting it into a statement in your own head.

Why must any operating system be designed with a 3D rendering engine compiled into it? It's just a question. I'm trying to learn. I've never once said it should or should not have the thing, I'm asking why would it need it? Why should it have an equivalent to Windows' implementation of such a thing? What do I gain? Is that always a good design choice? Is that true of Windows Server, and if so, why do I need 3D rendering baked into my Windows Server? What about Windows Server Core... does the NT kernel have it baked in there?

Now you're just being childish and lazy :)

No. That's not true. It does not do that. I've reinstalled Windows 11 several times to resolve issues or try these kinds of things out. It has never offered to download an AMD driver for me. This is false.

> Parent commenter said Linux shouldn't have <X>

I said no such thing! You've completely missed the point.

> Linux doesn’t have a good equivalent for these.

That implies Linux must or should have an equivalent to those features found in Windows -- you can choose any word you like, friend. There is no other reason to make that statement but to challenge the fact Linux doesn't have those options.

Fun fact: I switched to Kubuntu recently and I didn't even have to install a graphics driver. It was just there, just worked, and my AMD 7700 XTX is working fine and playing Windows "only" games via Proton just fine as well as Linux native games just fine.

I'm simply trying to get people to think about design choices and questioning or stating why one thing is better than another.

> If the user wants to play a game or watch a video, Direct3D is there to let him do that. If he doesn't, Direct3D doesn't get in the way.

I _just_ moved from Windows 11 to Kubuntu. None of that stuff is missing. In fact, unlike Windows 10/11, I didn't even have to install a graphics driver. My AMD 7700 XTX literally just worked right out of the box. Instantly. Ironically that’s not the case for Windows 10/11. This isn’t a “My OS is better than your OS” debate — we’re talking about why D3D being integrated into the kernel is a good idea. I’m playing devil’s advocate.

And thus, you missed my point: "Why should Linux have an equivalent to Direct3D" isn't me arguing that Windows having it is bad, it's me asking people to think about design choices and consider whether they're good or bad.

> This is far better than Linux's (neckbeards'?) philosophy of Thou Shalt Not Divert From The One True Path which will inevitably inconvenience many people and lead to, you guessed it, failure in the mainstream market.

If you think Windows having Direct3D "built in" is why it has mainstream dominance, then you potentially have a very narrow view of history, market timing, economics, politics, and a whole range of other topics that actually led to the dominance of Windows.

It _can be_ useful. It can also _not_ be useful to others. It sounds like it's not a choice in this case, but a forced feature, and that's fine for some and not for others.

So again, why _must_ Linux have an equivalent?

But why should Linux have an equivalent of such features?