You can still move your folder from .config/librewolf/ to .librewolf/ and it will use it from there. At least, it works like that in Firefox (potentially to be removed in the future, but there’s no real reason to remove it any time soon).

But yeah, I don’t know how that works together with KeePassXC. I mean, if it worked on LibreWolf before, then presumably moving the folder back to .librewolf/ should fix it until KeePassXC is updated…

(And yes, the .config/ directory is specified by the XDG standard.)

(Also, good shout about the directory being relevant. I guess, that’s also why the extension is currently broken for me, because I was a bit too eager to switch to the .config/ dir. 🙃)

Oh, I think, you’re right. It was a patch by openSUSE at first, but then they integrated it in about:config.

Just saw this while flicking through the changelog and hadn’t heard of this when it was released. Perhaps too niche to report on for news pages. So, I figured, I’d post here. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Just to kind of confirm this:

ls -l does not show them like hard links, but rather like soft/symbolic links.

But when I do tail -f /path/to/file.txt on a file (to keep it open in a process) and then delete the file, I get this output in ls -l:

3 -> '/path/to/file.txt (deleted)'

The 3 seems to just be an incrementing number for each file opened by the process. And then, well, obviously the file isn’t now called “file.txt (deleted)”. That is just a name the kernel makes up when ls -l asks it what’s in that directory.

So, presumably the kernel keeps a separate copy of that file in memory until the process closes the file or is terminated. And then exposes it through this pseudo-softlink rather than making use of hardlinks.

They do give out grants, which then existing organizations distribute to open-source devs.

For example, they give money to the NLnet foundation: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101135429
And then NLnet has given it to these projects: https://nlnet.nl/project/index.html
Some of those you might know, like for example this project called “Lemmy”.

Another example of what they do, which is somewhat different from what you had in mind, is that they give money to companies, if those companies open-source the developed software (and pay half the dev costs themselves), and ideally also cooperate with other companies.
You also have intermediate foundations for that, for example the Eclipse Foundation does a lot here: https://projects.eclipse.org/

Yeah? You should still make a decision. If you want it possible to watch, star and fork the repo from any of the sub-pages, then that stuff has to live in that top ribbon.

But then you shouldn’t duplicate it into the Code sub-page. I’d work with split buttons, where you can look at who starred and you can add your own star, all from the same UI element. It would not even take up more space, since they do already display the count in the top ribbon as well.

Apparently this is how Codeberg does it (see e.g. this repo), so this might be where I have the idea from…

I mean, yeah, it can make sense to duplicate information. That screenshot isn’t supposed to say that all of these should be deduplicated.
But you really gotta be cautious with duplication, because it makes everything else harder to find. And I would absolutely argue that GitHub has crossed the line where they duplicate too much, across the board. It feels like design-by-committee.

This is entirely anecdotal, but what really dumbfounded me while annotating that screenshot, is that I never actually read the links in that “About” section.
I’ve seen this page probably a thousand times already, but I had no idea that there’s an “Activity” link there, which actually seems like it could be useful. Nor a link to the README, to the CONTRIBUTING.md or for “Custom Properties” (whatever that is).
I had no idea how to report a repo until now, even though the link is apparently always on screen.

There’s just so much info there, and it’s presented like read-only info, not like navigation links, so I always just skipped over the lines that don’t have numbers in them. I also genuinely never tried clicking any of these lines before…

I could rant a lot about the GitHub UX, so here’s just the fairly obvious stuff on the repository page:

Red arrows mean duplicated information or duplicated navigational elements.
Green arrow means why the fuck do I have to tell our customers to click a random link in the middle of bumfuck nowhere, in order to download our software?

Yeah, from what I understand, hardware manufacturers need to ensure that no one uses the mobile chip to send on reserved frequencies. And the way they typically do that, is with a proprietary, undocumented driver for the mobile chip. So, you basically need to reverse engineer that for each mobile chip, to be able to make calls and such…

Flohmarkt is probably the closest. Basically federated ebay.

https://codeberg.org/flohmarkt/flohmarkt

You’d also need some way to automatically install the right package, if a dependency is missing. And you’d need to make this work seamlessly on all distros.

As a dev, I want my users to be able to use my software with as few clicks as possible. Ideally, just one. I’ll also accept two (download + run). For expert users, we can talk about 4 clicks, where they’d still unpack an archive after download.

But anything beyond that, especially if they have to first troubleshoot what dependency is missing on their system, that’s just not happening. They’ll just give up and delete my program, because they don’t want to invest time into getting it to run, when they don’t even know yet, if it does what they want. I know, I would.

I believe, they chose a different behaviour for RMB, because otherwise you can’t right-click the background anymore to create subfolders etc., when you’re looking at a folder with lots of files/subfolders inside.

I don’t know, if Windows has a solution for this. I certainly wouldn’t be surprised, if they don’t.

That headline completely misrepresents what he actually says.

Personally, I can see streaming gaining more of a foothold again, due to hardware prices, but only for the niche of high-fidelity games. And I rather imagine that niche is primarily going to shrink.

We’ve already got the “friendslop” games gaining massively in popularity. And if people can’t afford new hardware, a streaming service will be just as hard of a sell.

You are the one certifying that the contribution can be released under LGPL-2.1-or-later.

I mean, that is entirely non-negotiable, but it also effectively means that you’re just not allowed to generate larger chunks of code.
Because it’s impossible for a human to know that a generated chunk of code was taken from another project in a (largely) verbatim form.

Yeah, I once heard that in the video game industry, you start pre-production of a title about a year before you get started with proper development (a.k.a. “production”).

So, pre-production means brainstorming the game concept, theme, maybe initial concept art, maybe some prototypes etc…

But to quote Wikipedia:

The game entered pre-production by 2018, formally being announced during Bethesda’s E3 2018 conference. The game entered active production in 2023 following Starfield’s launch.

So, presumably they kicked in pre-production for a few weeks in 2018, specifically to produce that trailer. And then put it back aside and didn’t really get started until 2022 or so. 🙃

Starfield’s revenue sits at roughly $300 million across all platforms. […] a figure surely sabotaged by the Xbox and PC-exclusive RPG being readily available on Game Pass from the second it landed.

Well, let’s not forget that it was often not highly regarded, because the content was spread out so much. And that it launched in the wake of Baldur’s Gate 3.

Yeah, similarly, you don’t rewatch movies or series all too often, but there’s quite a lot of people that just play one or two games pretty much forever…

100k lines and you don’t yet have a design that’s mostly settled?

5 minutes sounds like way too much, unless you mean a fresh compile. But then you shouldn’t need to wait that long between changes, since incremental compilation should kick in then.

And like sure you can break shit up into crates to speed up compilation, but to do that you already have to have a design you’re happy with and that’s stable.

I mean, if you have your modules structured in a tree structure and with proper visibility, then it isn’t a particularly big leap to put it into a separate crate. You just move the files, maybe fix some visibility modifiers still, and then a bit of boilerplate to add it to the workspace.

It’s only really when you’re publishing to crates.io, that you don’t particularly want to keep changing the names/scopes of the crates, as they’ll stick around on there for the foreseeable future.

Personally, I’ve kind of given up all structure.

I have a script that creates a Markdown file with basically just the date in the file name and then it opens it in my text editor. All Markdown files are in one big folder. Notes, todos etc. all go into the there.

So long as a file is open in my text editor, it’s actively relevant. Afterwards I’ll use full-text search (like grep -iR), if I need something again.
I will often specify a title in the Markdown, but mainly because it’s a great place for keywords to make the file easier to find again. It’s also my way of tagging the files.

I mainly like this way of working, because I spend very little time on inputting information, which I do way more often than retrieving information (at least for the files which aren’t actively open in my text editor).
But I’ve also never used a structured approach for more than a few months without it turning into chaos, where full-text search is the only option anyways.

Maybe this would be different, if my tasks were more structured. Your mileage may vary. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯