Maybe I'm missing something, but how would GTA6 source leak really harm Rockstar? I mean it's unlikely it would be possible to compile a full working game from the leak, and even if so, it's such a non-trivial task, that I don't believe it would hurt sales /that/ much.
The only thing I can imagine is the story would get spoiled on the internet, but that's about it.
I would speculate that it’s not about individuals compiling and playing without paying, but that with access to the codebase, creating cracks and online cheats would be trivial, which might actually hurt their bottom line
It'd make it a pain to stop abuse of their online platform when it launches, which is financially problematic given gta 5 online made rockstar billions.
Just yesterday I used Jellyfin2Samsung to install Moonlight on my TV. After the installation, the app shown a popup to donate to the author ("buy me a beer"). And I figured why not? The software turned a tedious process into a one-click solution, letting me do what I wanted to do (stream games to my TV) rather than spending an evening messing with Tizen Studio. Absolutely worth a few dollars.
KDE's Plasma will popup a notification every once in a while asking for donation. When you close it, you won't hear from it again until the next fundraiser. I almost always donate as well.
If a software asks in a non-obtrusive way, ideally after I used it (either for a while or like in case of Jellyfin2Samsung after doing the one thing it's supposed to do), I don't mind at all.
I dislike apps (mostly websites) that keep asking for money, regardless of whether you already donated or not every single time you visit them.
Came here for this. In one of Nathan's blog posts he describes the notification as noticably driving the donations. Personally I haven't seen it ever myself, and what I also haven't seen is any complaints about it.
Would have been a better comparison than Wikimedia I guess, but aside that, the LibreOffice team still has a valid point that the reactions are unjustified.
In a week nobody will talk about it anymore though, so LO team, just sit it through :)
I used to have a git post-checkout hook that set the repo identity based on the repo origin url [0] on checkout - maybe there's some post-clone hook these days, but 10 years ago when I wrote it there was only post-checkout hook.
Happened on the first day of my first on-call rotation - a cert for one of the key services expired. Autorenew failed, because one of the subdomains on the cert no longer resolved.
The main lesson we took from this was: you absolutely need monitoring for cert expiration, with alert when (valid_to - now) becomes less than typical refresh window.
It's easy to forget this, especially when it's not strictly part of your app, but essential nonetheless.
I believe every sensible open-source developer strives to keep their software performant. To me, a performance regression is a bug like any other and I got and fix it. Sure, there's no warranty guaranteed in the license, yet no-one who takes their project even a little seriously takes it as "I can break this any way I want".
The question is, does Mozilla rigorously review every single update of every featured extension? Or did they just vet it once, and a malicious developer may now introduce data collection or similar "features" though a minor update of the extension and keep enjoying the "recommended" badge by Mozilla?
This may also be the reason for the extension begin "Featured" on the Chrome Web Store: Google vetted it once, and didn't think about it for each update.
That link doesn't answer the question though. It states that the extension is reviewed before receiving the recommended status. It does not state that updates are reviewed.
They do, and it takes longer for updates to Recommended extensions to be reviewed as a result.
This is what the Firefox add-ons team sent to me when one of my extensions was invited to the Recommended program:
> If you’re interested in Control Panel for Twitter becoming a Firefox Recommended Extension there are a couple of conditions to consider:
> 1) Mozilla staff security experts manually review every new submission of all Recommended extensions; this ensures all Recommended extensions remain compliant with AMO’s privacy and security standards. Due to this rigorous monitoring you can expect slightly longer review wait times for new version submissions (up to two weeks in some cases, though it’s usually just a few days).
> 2) Developers agree to actively maintain their Recommended extension (i.e. make timely bug fixes and/or generally tend to its ongoing maintenance). Basically we don't want to include abandoned or otherwise decaying content, so if the day arrives you intend to no longer maintain Control Panel for Twitter, we simply ask you to communicate that to us so we can plan for its removal from the program.
I always enjoyed being a metal head, the music is the main reason of course (I like it), but the community is a very big aspect of it too.
I always thought about metal shows and festivals as a "safe space", where people can really be themselves, because you don't have to suffer judgmental remarks about what you wear, what you look like or what you listen to. And most people there get this and feel this as well, which is why the community feels so welcoming and chill. Plus as someone else posted here, it's also all a bit silly and I think most people get that as well.
It's not that long ago that tables were the only reliable layout tool for HTML emails (mostly due to Outlook supporting only very limited subset of CSS).
The only thing I can imagine is the story would get spoiled on the internet, but that's about it.
reply