There is a setting somewhere IIRC (or at least there was) where you can separate file browser processes from the “main” explorer.exe process so you can kill individual Explorer windows but not the whole environment.

No, I’m not recommending a distro for you

Don’t worry, everyone else does

my experience is that through network, it’s just flawless. I turned on my printer and sure there it was. (though this feature just became a huge issue recently :P)

Yeah, sure, a really nice thing.

They should open-source it, as they did with Calculator.

like on porn sites

as someone, who could have been a professional classical guitar player, I am insulted.

so they are now pricey one-time/disposable phones

on mobile it’s just a huge pile of stinky shit anyway

welp, it’s another story how useful is this picture 😄, it just came to my mind and brought me some nostalgia in the meantime towards the artist. (yeah, saying artist in this case is strange, but otherwise who made this is a digital artist, or was, idk how active still)

reminded me of this picture

I like nano tho it has some strange shortcuts

I guess he just wanna links

I used to use Ubuntu, but nowadays I just go with Debian for servers (as well), but you said you wish to choose something else, so I can’t give you any meaningful inputs…

I don’t know how real the outdated packages threat, but I would assume, a server never really wants the bleeding edge software and Debian usually gets the critical security updates and patches.

But I’m no expert.

It is true that Bookworm is kinda old now, though.

unless your storage is a floppy disk, won’t be a problem

oh yeah, now one can accidentally close the Start menu by clicking in the gap between the panels.

Because Mozilla promised us privacy, and “privacy-friendly” ad tracking is still worse privacy than not baking ad tracking into the browser in the first place.

I don’t think “privacy” works in a way you snap your fingers, and bam, you have privacy, without any progress or stations in your way. Especially in today’s web. Also, it’s not just on Mozilla. On the contrary. I feel like Mozilla is the only “bigger name” in this market who tries to navigate in this shitstormy sea that is the web now.

Tho, it’s just me, but it sounds much better if my browser handles all the tracking and data sharing business in a controlled manner with advertisers in a “privacy-friendly” way than no control overall (especially since it’s Firefox and not Chrome/Edge), hoping only the other side would respect my preferences and requests.

But in the end, as I read other comments here, the problem is just the default state of the checkbox, got it. Feels a bit silly - in this particular case - but I can understand it.

I understand this, thanks. But still feels way too overreacted. But now, that’s just what I think about this.

Peoples are mostly angry at the fact that they just silently slipped this system in without asking for consent.

But why? Does it expose more data? More sensitive data than before?

What I don’t get, but maybe because of the lack of information I have on the topic is that if it’s better in terms of data privacy than before, or is it better if it’s turned on than off, why is it such a great problem, if it’s turned on by default? In this case, not turning it on would be something that one should be noted. Any technical, real-world reasons why not giving my consent to enable this feature gives reason to get mad, or is this really just about “not having a choice”, regardless the outcome?

If I understand all this correctly, Mozilla teamed up with Meta to create a method that helps advertisers in a user privacy-friendly way. Aside from the initial trigger people have here reading the word “Meta” or by just the existence of ads, is there any problematic with this, without going really deep into tinfoil hat territory?

Also, am I understanding it correctly that the outrage is mainly because this feature is enabled by default? So again, a function that helps protecting your privacy, is enabled by default? Because, it seems most people just offended by only this fact alone.

But I’m maybe missing something here.