On Arch, I use ffmpegthumbnailer to accomplish this.
Kickass Women isn't going to see this comment because this user is from lemmy.world, which has blocked my instance.
The reasons are made clear on their roadmap.
The GTK3 port is done, and now they need to finalize the new extension API and improve their color space support (particularly CMYK). It would be nice if Wayland had a color management protocol extension standardized by then, but I don't think it's a blocker.
I wonder if the same is going to be true of Thunderbird. Thunderbird actually requires you use Mercurial to contribute at all, rather than managing both git and Mercurial.
That being said...it's kind of odd to me how swiftly Mozilla of all companies/orgs is to embrace a code forge hosted by Microsoft for their main software. Surreal, even.
KDE has an overview now too! It's mapped to Super+W by default. And they're continuing to make it fancier in Plasma 6.
Windows users have been asking for HEVC support for years: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1332136
7 years ago, this was the answer:
Mozilla currently has no plans to support H.265. Our focus will be on AV1.
The reason we won't support H265 has nothing to do with the difficulty in finding a decoder, or that a decoder source code is released under GPL. Those are trivial matters.
We will not support h265 video while its patent encumbered.
BTW, even today vp9 provides better results than H265.
The conversation changed to, "Firefox could at least do hardware decode support without worrying about patents, right?"
My guess is they're doing this because Chrome added HEVC hardware decoding support last year.
A popular spreadsheeting program that was displaced by Microsoft Excel in the '90s.
There's also this infamous quote:
DOS ain't done until Lotus can't run
More information investigating the source of this quote: https://www.proudlyserving.com/archives/2005/08/dos_aint_done_t.html
They do say that:
Usually combined with the kernel Linux, GNU forms the backbone of the Internet and powers millions of servers, desktops, and embedded computing devices.
The GNU kernel was not originally supposed to be called the Hurd. Its original name was Alix—named after the woman who was my sweetheart at the time. She, a Unix system administrator, had pointed out how her name would fit a common naming pattern for Unix system versions; as a joke, she told her friends, “Someone should name a kernel after me.” I said nothing, but decided to surprise her with a kernel named Alix.
Hell no, no way I’d trust Google with my code. Personal or otherwise.
Ditto. But at the risk of playing devil's advocate, if you were writing free software code you were going to stick on a code forge somewhere anyway, would you still be against it?
Are there Google services that only work in Chrome? I don't use any of them, so I don't know. I do know Google is generally less annoying than Microsoft in that department.
Google et al. run crawlers primarily to populate their search engines. This is a net positive for those whose sites get scraped, because when they appear in a search engine they get more traffic, more page views, more ad revenue.
This is not necessarily true. Google's instant answers are designed to use the content from websites to answer searcher's questions without actually leading them to the website. Whether you're trying to find the definition for the word, the year a movie came out, or a recipe, Google will take the information they've scraped from a website and present it on their page with a link to the website. Their hope is that the information will be useful enough that the searcher never needs to leave the search engine.
This might be useful for searchers, but it doesn't help the sites much. This is one of the reasons news companies attempted to take action against Google a few years ago. I think a search engine should provide some useful utilities, but not try to replace the sites they're ostensibly attempting to connect users to. Not all search engines are like this, but Google is.
I wrote a fairly detailed spec for some software and told it what dependencies to use, what it should do, and what command-line options it should use. The base was a decent starting point, but after several hours of back-and-forth, after actually reading the code, I realized it had completely misinterpreted my spec somehow and implemented a similar feature in a completely broken way, as well as making a few mistakes/redundancies elsewhere. I tried to coach it to fix these issues, but it just couldn't cope.
I spent about 3 hours getting this base code generated, and about 5 hours re-writing it and implementing the features properly. The reason I turned to ChatGPT is because I needed this software written by the end of the day, and I didn't have time to read all the different docs for the dependencies I needed to use to write it. It likely would have taken me at least 2 days to write this program myself. It was an interesting learning experience, but my only ChatGPT usage in the future is likely to be with individual code blocks.
You really need to pay attention if you're using LLMs to generate code. I've found it usually gets at least one thing wrong, and sometimes multiple things horribly wrong. Don't rely on it; look for other sources to corroborate all of its explanations. Additionally, please do not feed proprietary, copyrighted code into ChatGPT. The software I was writing was released under a free license. OpenAI will use it as training data unless you use their API and opt out of it. ChatGPT isn't really a tool; it's a service which is using you as much as you're using it.
Spectacle8011
joined 1 year ago
When my KDE screenlocker crashes on Wayland, all my monitors tell me to switch to a TTY and run a manual unlock. Which is reassuring!