Nothing comes to mind. DRM literally means digital rights management and unless you wanted to be petty, like blocking a certain person from using your app, then DRM for something free is not something that I can think of a use case for.
Nothing comes to mind. DRM literally means digital rights management and unless you wanted to be petty, like blocking a certain person from using your app, then DRM for something free is not something that I can think of a use case for.
Enforcing payment comes to mind without resorting to in-app purchase or any account creation. A lot of desktop software is a good example of those. Sure, you can still have cracks and whatnot, but then again, that’s not the point. Might as well ask what is the point of Denuvo. That is a whole other discussion.
Yes, that’s my point. Android “doesn’t” have to use Google Play Store, but it is convenient. Other store fronts exist like F-droid and many vendor specific one. Google just provide the DRM mechanism like steam does provide DRM via steamworks
What I mean by that is, this is just an API/SDK for app developers to use. Google does not enforce the use of such things. Much like steam does not force the use of their drm for example (please note the difference between the marketplace and the drm). App developers can always choose how they make and distribute their app.
Ehh, this is basically just another form of DRM. No different than you having a Steam and GOG model. You can make your apps using DRM and enforce certain constraints
ROG Ally
Hmmm, yeah it gets harder to associate it with physical reality when user generated content is introduced. Maybe an archival of said content is mandated but then again, who is going to serve the archive. In the case of youtube, it would be almost impossible
Huh, the difference is that a website is not akin to a public park but privately owned park with or without entrance fee. The owner is nice enough to open the park and let you do whatever you want for free with the cleaning and maintenance is paid by the owner, but when the park is closed, would you still say the owner should still be forced to maintain it?
I never understood this argument. Why does having common first letter bad? If you mean subjectively then sure, it may not be for everyone, but objectively?
Eh, we can argue about language all we want but at the end of the day if it is still the same code just with a different branding, someone will be bound to automate the process eventually. It’s FOSS, if someone is willing to put in the works to enable people who think the brand name is a hindrance for their change then more power for them no? We even change master/slave terminology in CS and many other field for the same reason (linguistic)
To be fair, if the fork sole purpose is to just re-label the software and make people that have irks because of the name start to use the software, who are we to judge?
Same could be said for any other distro. I think his point is that when shit just works, nothing makes a difference between distro. Be it Arch, Debian, Ubuntu, Mint, Fedora, Gentoo
Research and development is tricky because you will never know how much more progress you will need before reaching a satisfying result.
Yeah, that is the only weird part about it. I think AMD is cooking up something right now behind the curtain. Whether that something is good or bad we don’t know yet but so far it does not look good.
Yep, I really hope that AMD is cooking up something. A shame that it’s not open sourced but if it means going up against nvidia dominance now, I’ll take their side just for that cause only.
The fuck are you talking about? I already gave an example of mindustry being free anywhere but steam. As long as they don’t distribute the steam keys for free somewhere else, they are safe. Steam mandates that you put the lowest/price parity for the steam keys you sold outside of steam. If for example a game is being sold on steam priced at $15 with a 30% cut, the publishers are free to distribute the steam keys on their storefront for the same $15 without any cut. OR they could sell it cheaper BUT they cannot sell the steam keys. Maybe other storefront keys/drm. But the problem is, will the publisher sell it for a lower price knowing that they could sell it for the same price across the board with a higher profit margin?
If you wanted to argue that it is steam’s fault for taking the 30% cut in the first place so we get where we are now, then I don’t know what to tell you anymore. The problem is not steam but greed. Back to my example mindustry, that is a valid strategy to sell it for free everywhere but steam and is perfectly legal. It’s just no one wanted to follow that model (instead of free, offer a cheaper price).
Maybe depending on how far you take it. A CPU instruction is different from hardware to hardware, but a function signature would stay the same no matter the underlying architecture. If we want to go through that logic then an interpreter can be thought of as a form of emulator.
The problem is the business models revolve around the software. You cannot directly compare them without also comparing the complexity and manpower required to achieve it. Just take a look at W3C spec and you’ll see just how many cases there are to handle when making a browser. Not to mention making it secure and performant. Also, if you want to support web push technology on your browser you also need to have infrastructure to maintain. A donation may work but you’ll have to be content with slow development since the resources can be uncertain.
The redneck engineering equivalent in CS