Been enjoying a Logitech MX Master 3S myself, it’s definitely a nice mouse to handle, but it’s also not something that could be called particularly small.

And it’s still entirely unrelated to my point, since SUSE will remain the trademark in question regardless of what’s actually contained in OpenSUSE.

But yes, the free/open-source spins of things tend to have somewhat differing content compared to the commercial offering, usually for licensing or support reasons.
E.g. CentOS (when it still was a real thing)/AlmaLinux/etc supporting hardware that regular RHEL has dropped support for, while also not distributing core RedHat components like the subscription manager.

Not at all what my point was. There’s indeed plenty of Open-something (or Libre-something) projects under the sun, but no free/open spins of commercial projects named simply “Open<Trademarked company name / commercial offering>”.

To be fair, OpenSUSE is the only project with a name like that, so it makes some sense that they’d want it changed.
There’s no OpenRedHat, no OpenNovell, no OpenLinspire, etc.

I assume both the $20 and $25 prices were during alpha/early access. Was thinking entirely of release pricing.

Completely blanked on early access pricing, so yes, if you bought it before release then it was likely cheaper still.

That is true, I didn’t even think of early access.

It’s reasonably easy to guess exactly what you paid for the game, since the only change in price since launch was a $5 bump in January last year. It’s never been on sale.

It releases while I’m on the way back home from a trip to Manchester, might have to bring my Deck so I can play on the flight/train.

It’s somewhat amusing how Itanium managed to completely miss the mark, and just how short its heyday was.

It’s also somewhat amusing that I’m still today helping host a pair of HPE Itanium blades - and two two-node DEC Alpha servers - for OpenVMS development.

Going to be really amazing to play Factorio again without knowing how to solve everything.

In general, browser benchmarks seem to often favor Firefox in terms of startup and first interaction timings, and often favor Chrome when it comes to crunching large amounts of data through JavaScript.
I.e. for pages which use small amounts of JavaScript, but call into it quickly after loading, Firefox tends to come out on top. But for pages which load lots of JavaScript and then run it constantly, Chrome tends to come out on top.

We’re usually talking milliseconds-level of difference here though. So if you’re using a mobile browser or a low-power laptop, then the difference is often not measurable at all, unless the page is specifically optimized for one or the other.

There’s a bunch of extensions that allow you to switch user-agent easily, I personally use this one, it includes a list of known strings to choose between as well.

They used to also use the unreleased version 0 of shadow DOM for building the Polymer UI, which - being a Chrome-only prototype - understandably didn’t work on Firefox, and therefore instead used a really slow Javascript polyfill to render its UI.

I haven’t checked on it lately, but I imagine they must’ve changed at least that by now.

One thing you can test is to apply a Chrome user-agent on Firefox when visiting YouTube. In my personal experience that actually noticeably improves the situation.

Go has a heavy focus on simplicity and ease-of-use by hiding away complexity through abstractions, something that makes it an excellent language for getting to the minimum-viable-product point. Which I definitely applaud it for, it can be a true joy to code an initial implementation in it.

The issue with hiding complexity like such is when you reach the limit of the provided abstractions, something that will inevitably happen when your project reaches a certain size. For many languages (like C/C++, Ruby, Python, etc) there’s an option to - at that point - skip the abstractions and instead code directly against the underlying layers, but Go doesn’t actually have that option.
One result of this is that many enterprise-sized Go projects have had to - in pure desperation - hire the people who designed Go in the first place, just to get the necessary expertice to be able to continue development.

Here’s one example in the form of a blog - with some examples of where hidden complexity can cause issues in the longer term; https://fasterthanli.me/articles/i-want-off-mr-golangs-wild-ride

Go really does do well in the zero-to-hero case, that’s for certain. Unfortunately it doesn’t fare nearly as well in terms of ease when it comes to continued development.

If you’re going to post release notes for random selfhostable projects on GitHub, could you at least add the GitHub About text for the project - or the synopsis from the readme - into the post.

I’ve been looking at the rewrite of Owncloud, but unfortunately I really do need either SMB or SFTP for one of the most critical storage mounts in my setup.
I don’t particularly feel like giving Owncloud a win either, they’ve not been behaving in a particularly friendly manner for the community, and their track record with open core isn’t particularly good, so I really don’t want to end up with a decent product that then steadily mutilates itself to try and squeeze money out of me.

The Owncloud team actually had a stand at FOSDEM a couple of years back, right across from the Nextcloud team, and they really didn’t give me much confidence in the project after chatting with them. I’ve since heard that they’re apparently not going to be allowed to return again either, due to how poorly they handled it.

I’ve been hoping to find a non-PHP alternative to Nextcloud for a while, but unfortunately I’ve yet to find one which supports my base requirements for the file storage.

Due to some quirks with my setup, my backing storage consists of a mix of local folders, S3 buckets, SMB/SFTP mounts (with user credential login), and even an external WebDav server.
Nextcloud does manage such a thing phenomenally, while all the alternatives I’ve tested (including a Radicale backed by rclone mounts) tend to fall completely to pieces as soon as more than one storage backend ends up getting involved, especially when some of said backends need to be accessed with user-specific credentials.