• 44 Posts
  • 94 Comments
Joined 9 months ago
cake
Cake day: November 28th, 2023

help-circle
  • Regular Qt themes are compiled C++ programs that use the QStyle API to alter the look of Qt applications. They can do just about anything, but obviously require code to create. Being compiled programs also means they can’t be portably distributed. They have to be recompiled for every different Qt version and architecture.

    Kvantum is just one of those themes, and it uses its code to load and display much simpler SVG-based themes. Kvantum themes are actually much less complex than regular Qt themes, which is the whole point, since that makes them significantly simpler to create and much more portable, which is why they’re so popular. The vast majority of Qt themes nowadays are made for Kvantum. Before Kvantum, it was mostly the less powerful QtCurve. Regular themes can do a lot of things Kvantum themes can’t, but Kvantum is usually good enough.




  • This is excellent news. I was always annoyed at the fact that Dolphin had to use its own thumbnailer API. Now apps can bundle one thumbnailer for their file formats that works with all file managers, which is great.

    One thing that I always thought would be really interesting to see would be a Wine thumbnailer that would generate thumbnails using Windows thumbnails for Linux file managers. So for example installing Sketchup on Wine would give you skp thumbnails, since Sketchup is bundled with a Windows Explorer thumbnailer for those files. I know Wine already supports thumbnailer shell extensions in its built-in file manager, so it would just need to be able speak with Linux file managers.

    Now I just hope to see something similar happen with service menus. Every file manager has its own unique format, but it’s IMO the biggest obstacle to interoperability remaining with Linux file managers.


  • This entire thing is just idealism vs pragmatism for the trillionth time. The idealists are mad because they think all ads are bad and we shouldn’t try to work with advertisers in any capacity. They do not believe reducing the harmfulness of ads is a valid approach, because that would be an acknowledgement of ads. Common talking points there are about how this is technically working with advertisers and how the internet shouldn’t have ads in the first place.

    The pragmatics also think ads are bad, but believe that an Internet without ads is very unlikely to happen, so they believe attempting to reduce the harmfulness of ads is a valid approach. Common talking points there are about how this isn’t giving advertisers anything they don’t already have and about how this doesn’t matter if you’re using an adblocker.

    Like all other debates of this type, this probably isn’t ever going to be resolved to anyone’s satisfaction and we’ve really just been seeing the same talking points over and over again since the beginning. So I hope y’all have fun duking it out, I don’t think I’m gonna bother looking at these pointless PPA threads anymore.










  • These are known as the short scale and long scale systems respectively. Though the United States was indeed the first English-speaking country to switch to short scale, pretty much all English-speaking countries have used short scale almost exclusively for a long time, including the United Kingdom. Saying that it’s simply being influenced is an understatement. From Wikipedia:

    British usage: Billion has meant 109 in most sectors of official published writing for many years now. The UK government, the BBC, and most other broadcast or published mass media, have used the short scale in all contexts since the mid-1970s.[12][13][43][15]

    Before the widespread use of billion for 109, UK usage generally referred to thousand million rather than milliard.[16] The long scale term milliard, for 109, is obsolete in British English, though its derivative, yard, is still used as slang in the London money, foreign exchange, and bond markets.

    I’ve never actually seen the word milliard used in English outside of discussions about the long and short scale systems. However, many other languages do mainly or exclusively use long scale. For instance, my native language French.




  • It used to be open source, but large parts of it have been relicensed under their proprietary source-available shared source license. The reason why it isn’t entirely proprietary is that it’s based on Firefox, which is entirely licensed under the MPL. The weak copyleft of the MPL states that all parts lifted from Firefox must remain open source, but the new parts can be proprietary.

    Source-available licenses are a type of proprietary license where the code is made public for people to look at, but you’re not actually allowed to use it. Users can still contribute upstream, so they’re usually parasitic licenses aimed at getting free labour out of the userbase without actually giving back any code to the commons, all while keeping up the illusion of being open source. It sucks.